Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KM. SAURABH VIBHUSHAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Km. Saurabh Vibhushan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 27514 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 974 (5 April 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

  Advertisement no. 3/03-04 was published by Lok Seva Ayog, U.P., Allahabad in the Employment News dated 1.8.2004 inviting applications for various posts of Lecturer (Women) in Home Science. The qualification for the post was Graduate or Post Graduate degree in Home Science. Selection was to be made from amongst the Scheduled Caste candidates only.  

The petitioner was eligible and applied for the post under item no. 7, category no. 6 of the advertisement. She was informed vide letter dated 23.3.2995, Annexure 4 to the writ petition, issued on behalf of the Secretary, Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad that she is not eligible for interview according to the criteria fixed for short listing of the candidates.  

Aggrieved, the petitioner has come upon in this writ petition alleging that she is Post Graduate in Home Science and she has gathered information that some candidates who are only Graduate have been called for interview whereas she ought to have been given preference being a Post Graduate.  It is also alleged that one Poonam Gautam who is B.Sc Home Science has been called illegally depriving the petitioner from the interview which is in violation of Articles 14  and 16 of the Constitution of India.  It is further alleged that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are misinterpreting their own advertisement in calling upon B.Sc candidates in preference to petitioner who is Post Graduate and she is entitled to be called for interview.

No other point has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner.

The matter has been taken upon as urgent one on the mention having been made by the counsel for the petitioner that interviews for the post have already commenced on 4.4.2005 and  they are to conclude on 6.4.2005.

Sri M.A. Quadeer  who had accepted notice on behalf of the respondents was called upon by the court to immediately seek instructions from the Public Service Commission, U.P, Allahabad being a local matter.

Sri Quadeer has informed that official from Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad has come.  He states that for the purpose of interview, candidates who had obtained at least 57% marks in Graduate/Post Graduate examinations were called for the interview.  He drew the attention of the court to Annexure 5 to the writ petition, which is a representation of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that she has secured only 56.75% marks in M.Sc (Home Science) and if it is rounded off, she should also be called for interview.  He further submits that only those candidates have been called for  who have secured 57% or more marks and that there are 14 more candidates who have secured 56.75% marks. If the petitioner is to be called for interview, the other 13 candidates will also be entitled to be called for interview, As none of them have been called for interview, there is no discrimination.  He submits that though the petitioner was qualified for applying for the post, she is not eligible according to criteria formulated for interview by the commission.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be given preference because she possesses Post Graduate degree in Home Science has no force as there is no condition in the advertisement that candidates having Post Graduate degree applying for the post will be given preference.  It is apparent from the perusal of the advertisement, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, that minimum qualification for the post is B.Sc.  The petitioner has obtained 56.75% marks in M.Sc.  In B.Sc also, she obtained 719 out of 1350 marks which is also less than 57% whereas Poonam Gautam fulfills the criteria and was eligible for interview.  The petitioner has got less than 57% marks in B.Sc and M.Sc hence she has rightly not been called for interview as such, no case for violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India has been made out.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Dated 5.4.2005

kkb


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.