Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROOPAK RASTOGI versus PRINCIPAL, MEERUT COLLEGE AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Roopak Rastogi v. Principal, Meerut College And Others - WRIT - A No. 2837 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1613 (11 July 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.25.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.   2837 of   2005.

Roopak Rastogi ........... Petitioner

Versus

Principal, Meerut College,Meerut

and others ...........      Respondents

:::::::::::

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Jain learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 and the learned standing counsel. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged.  By consent of parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the advertisement advertisement dated 4.1.2005 Annexure-1 to the writ petition by which the respondent- college  has advertised one post of Assistant Accountant (unreserved ), two post of Routine grade clerks (reserved for Scheduled Caste ) and three posts of Lab Assistants (reserved for Scheduled Caste ).  The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that the notice was published on the notice board of the Institution  on 4.1.2005 by which time was allowed to submit application till  8.1.2005. The advertisement published in the news paper " Indian Express"  dated 4.1.2005 provided time till 15th January, 2005 but the petitioner and other persons were in belief that the time is only 8.1.2005 on the basis of the notice published on the notice board of the institution.  It is further stated in the writ petition that 12th , 13th  and 14th  January, 2005 was holiday and the College was closed and the petitioner could not get the form although he visited the college to submit his application.  It is further submitted that the post of routine grade clerks and Lab Assistants are 2 and 3 respectively but all the posts have been reserved for Scheduled Caste  which is against the provision of reservation. Submission is that not more than fifty percent  posts can be reserved . Sri P. K. Jain appearing for the respondent- College  stated that the advertisement was published in the news paper "Amar Ujala " also  and the notice whereby earlier time was given on 8.1.2005 was extended upto 15.1.2005. He further stated that the posts of Routine Grade Clerks and Lab Assistants are back log quota of Scheduled Caste hence  all the posts have been reserved for Scheduled Casts candidates. He further contended that 12th , 13th and 14th  January, 2005 was holiday but the office was open which fact was disputed by the counsel for the petitioner.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no dispute that the posts were advertised  in the news paper on 4.1.2005 which was published in the news paper "Indian Express" and Hindi news paper "Amar Ujala" dated 5.1.2005.  The advertisement provided that the applications shall be received till 15th of January, 2005.  It is not disputed that earlier on the notice board of the Institution notice was published  that the applications shall be received till 8th January, 2005, copy of which notice has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.  The notice board publication is clearly   contrary to the advertisement issued by the Management in which time was given till 15th January, 2005 .  This representation on behalf of the College Management  misled  the candidate.  There is further no dispute that 12th, 13th and 14th of January, 2005 were holiday and the College  was closed. It is not necessary to enter into the dispute as to whether although  college was closed the office was open or not.      Learned counsel for the  College submitted that the selection process is not complete and the interview has not been held till date.  From the facts brought on record it is clear   that sufficient time was not allowed to the candidates to apply in pursuance of the advertisement.   Ends of justice be served in directing the Management to provide fifteen days'  further time to all the candidates including the petitioner to submit applications.  Necessary corrigendum be published in the same news paper in which the advertisement  was published.  Management may verify also  as to whether  the two posts of Routine Grade Clerks and three posts of Lab Assistants belong to back log of reserved vacancy for Scheduled Caste  and if it is so then  it be clearly mentioned in the corrigendum.  Necessary corrigendum  be issued by the Management within four weeks from today.

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.

D/-11.7.2005

SCS/2837


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.