Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 3. We have also gone through the Full Bench judgement of our High Court reported in 2005 (4) ESC 2378 (All) Sarika Vs. State of U.P. and others where also it has been held that the reservation will be made, if required, for the judicial service by the State Government, then it should be made in consultation with the High Court. Therefore, when such Full Court of this High Court did not approve any such proposal for reservation, we are of view that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered and as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. --------- APPELLATE JURISDITION CIVIL SIDE DATED ALLAHABAD:04.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE C.K. PRASAD, C.J. THE HON’BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Special Appeal (D) No. 318 of 2006 With Special Appeal (D) No. 615 of 2009 Superintending Engineer, Jhansi Lalitpur Circile, P.W.D. Jhansi and others …Appellants/Respondents Versus Anoop Kumar Rathore …Respondent/Petitioner Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K.S. Kushwaha, S.C. Sri M.S. Pipersenia, Addl. CSC Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Indra Raj Singh U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules 1985- Rule 23-Rule provides mode of selectionwritten test and Hindi typing test-only these candidate after qualifying in both test on basis of merit shall be called for interview-advertisement provides preference of Hindi Type knowing Candidates- petitioner respondent qualify in written test but remain unsucess in type test-nor called for interview-held-on conflict of rules as well as in advertisement-rule shall prerail as per law developed by apex Court-held-petitioner/ respondent can not be selected- order passed by Single Judge-set a side. Held: Para-27 In view of the judgment dated 09.09.2005 having been set aside by us, we have no hesitation in further expressing the same opinion in respect of the judgment dated 12.01.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.51691 of 2006, inasmuch as the said judgment proceeds on the same presumption and findings that were drawn in favour of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7660 of 1999. Therefore, the judgment dated 12.01.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.51691 of 2006 is also set aside. Case law discussed JT 2007(3) SC 352. (Delivered by Hon'ble C.K. Prasad, C.J.) 1. These two special appeals arise, though against separate judgments dated 09.09.2005 and 12.01.2009 respectively, out of common questions of law and fact pertaining to the same process of selection on the post of Junior Clerk in the Public Works Department, against an advertisement dated 10.08.1998 published by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, where the respondent-petitioner Anoop Kumar Rathore (hereinafter referred to as the ''petitioner') claimed appointment on the basis of the said selection.
3 All] Superintending Engineer and others V.Anoop Kumar Rathore 1081 2. The dispute raised by the petitioner is that knowledge of Hindi typewriting was only a preferential qualification, and not essential, as per the advertisement itself, and therefore, the appellants - employer could not have disqualified the candidature of the petitioner on that count. The stand of the appellants in response is that the word preference in the advertisement was a mistake, and that the Rules provide for knowledge of Hindi typewriting as an essential qualification for the post in question, which would prevail as against an error in the advertisement. The learned Single Judges while allowing the writ petitions have found favour with the plea of the petitioner, hence these appeals under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Clerk in the Public Works Department in the Jhansi Region against the advertisement issued by the Chief Engineer of the said region dated 10.08.1998. He appeared in the written examination, which was conducted on 13th December 1998 and by a subsequent letter dated 5th February 1999, he was called upon to appear in the typing test scheduled on 13.02.1999. The petitioner appears to have made himself available for the typing test, but could not qualify the same. The result of the written test was declared and a merit list was prepared, which was sent to the State Government. The petitioner was, however, not interviewed, as only those candidates were called for interview who qualified in the Hindi typing test with a speed of 25 words per minute. 4. At this stage, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7660 of 1999 praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities (appellants herein) to give him an opportunity to appear in the interview for the post of Junior Clerk and thereafter declare his result. This Court entertained the writ petition and thereafter vide order dated 26.02.1999 stayed the declaration of the result of the said selections. Out of the selected candidates, one Santosh Kumar Yadav filed Writ Petition No. 7903 of 2000 and the said writ petition was heard along with Writ Petition No. 7660 of 1999, where after by an order dated 20.04.2001, the interim order dated 26.02.1999 was modified directing the respondents therein to declare the results, which were made subject to the final decision of the writ petition. These facts are mentioned in the order dated 26.08.2006 passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jhansi Region, Jhansi. 5. The writ petition filed by the petitioner, i.e. Writ Petition No. 7660 of 1999 was finally decided on 9th September 2005 after exchange of affidavits, and the learned Judge held that the qualification of possessing proficiency in Hindi typewriting was only a preferential qualification as per the advertisement for the post in question, and since it was not an essential qualification, the Department had erred in excluding the petitioner from the interview. Accordingly, a direction was issued to interview the petitioner separately and to convey the result of the said interview to the Board for final consideration. The Department preferred Special Appeal (Defective) No. 318 of 2006 assailing the said judgment, which was presented before the Court on
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14:
3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24:
3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26:
3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28:
3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56:
3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 57 and 58: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 59 and 60: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64: 3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68: 3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 111 and 112: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 113 and 114: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116: 3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?