Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI BABU versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Babu v. State of U.P. and another - WRIT - C No. 12015 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 4183 (7 October 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. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12015 of 1999

Hari Babu

Vs.

State of U.P. & Anr.

********

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the Commissioner and Director Hathkargha Evam Vastrodyog, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ''Director') to produce the merit list of the written examination held on 13th December, 1998 and for permitting the petitioner to appear at the interview to be held on 26th March, 1999 and for quashing the result declared on 14th March, 1999.

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 10th August, 1998 issued for inviting applications for various posts including that of Industrial Supervisor/Technical Supervisor, the petitioner submitted an application and then the communication was sent to the petitioner asking him to appear at the written examination to be held on 13th December, 1998. The petitioner appeared at the written examination and the result of the written examination was communicated to the Directorate and a list of candidates to be called for interview was prepared and call letters were issued fixing the date of interviews from 8th March, 1999 to 11th March, 1999. However, when a random check of the merit list was conducted on 8th March, 1999 it was found that many mistakes had crept in the preparation of the list as a result of which the entire list was cancelled. Subsequently a fresh merit list was prepared and published in the newspaper ''Dainik Jagran' on 14th March, 1999 requiring the candidates to appear for interview between 23rd March, 1999 and 27th March, 1999. After the holding of the interview, the final result was declared and appointment letters were issued to the candidates on 15th April, 1999. The petitioner was not called for interview since he did not possess the requisite eligibility requirement.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials available on record.

A perusal of the advertisement indicates that the essential qualification for the post of Industrial Supervisor/Technical Supervisor is as follows:-

"Must have passed Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education Uttar Pradesh or an examination recognized as equivalent thereto by the Government and must have obtained training in Co-operative from a recognized institution with two years practical experience of Handloom Industry.

Or

Must posses a Diploma in Textile Technology or Weaving Technology or Handloom Technology."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the respondents had invited the petitioner to appear at the written examination they cannot be permitted to contend that he did not possess the requisite qualification. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated inasmuch as other similarly situated candidates possessing lesser merit were called for interview whereas the petitioner was not called for interview and that in any view of the matter the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was patently ineligible to appear at the examination because he did not possess the requisite qualification as clearly mentioned in the advertisement and that mere appearance at the written examination does not confer a right upon the petitioner to be declared as an eligible candidate; that the candidates who were called for interview possessed the requisite qualification and so the petitioner cannot compare his case with such candidates; that the averments made in the petition about discrimination are absolutely vague apart from the fact that the petitioner has not impleaded any such candidate as a party respondent by name in the petition.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the essential qualification mentioned above clearly show that apart from having passed the Intermediate Examination, the candidate for the post of Industrial Supervisor/Technical Supervisor must have obtained training in Co-operative from a recognized institution with two years practical experience of Handloom Industry or the candidate must possess a Diploma in Textile Technology or Weaving Technology or Handloom Technology.

The petitioner had not submitted a valid Co-operative training certificate from a recognized institution. The certificate submitted by the petitioner was from Khadi Gram Udyog Ayog Bombay from where he had completed the training of Khadi Karyakarta Abhyas Karm 5 from Khadi Gramodyog Vidhyalay Patranga, Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh. The respondents have rejected the certificate as it was for a Khadi Worker only but was not for Co-operative Training which, in fact, was being imparted by other recognized Co-operative Training Institute such as Audyogik Sahkari Prashikshan Sansthan Kanpur and National Council for Co-operative Training Lucknow. The petitioner also did not possess two years practical experience of Handloom Industry. The post of Industrial Supervisor/Technical Supervisor is a technical job requiring technical experience but the certificates submitted by the petitioner shows that he worked as a temporary salesman or a regular clerk or an accountant. According to the respondents this certificate does not relate to actual practical experience of Handloom Industry wherein the requirement is that the person should have worked actually as a weaver, dyer, warper, sizer, spinner, handloom designer, printer etc. to gain two years practical experience of Handloom Industry.

Even the alternative requirement of possessing Diploma in Textile Technology or Weaving Technology or Handloom Technology was not possessed by the petitioner since the certificate submitted by him was not in respect of a Diploma in Textile Technology or Weaving Technology or Handloom Technology.

It is, therefore, more than apparent that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Industrial Supervisor/Technical Supervisor. He was, therefore, not eligible to be considered for appointment to the said post. There is, therefore, no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisite essential qualification was possessed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that once the respondents had permitted the petitioner to appear at the written examination it must be deemed that his eligibility had been examined and only when the petitioner was found to be eligible he could have been permitted to appear at the written examination. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Mere appearance at the written examination cannot confer any benefit upon the petitioner, if otherwise, he is found to be ine ligible. The respondents have explained the circumstances under which the petitioner was permitted to appear at the written examination and when subsequently the application forms were thoroughly examined it was found that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment. The respondents, therefore, rightly did not call the petitioner for interview.

In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that discrimination had been practised since similarly situated candidates obtaining lesser marks were called for interview. He, therefore, submitted that the entire result should be cancelled and a fresh examination should be held.

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first instance, the averments made by the petitioner are absolutely vague and no specific case with full details has been cited. The respondents have also come out with a categorical statement that the other candidates who were called for interview possessed the requisite qualification whereas the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. The petitioner has not also impleaded any such candidate by name. It was not only imperative for the petitioner to have made a specific averment in the writ petition giving specific details but it was also necessary for him to have impleaded such candidates as a party respondent in the petition. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the petitioner.

The petition is thus devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.    

Dt:- 7.10.2005

NSC


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.