Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. SHAILEZA TEWARI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Shaileza Tewari v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 48734 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 15512 (6 September 2006)

 

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.3

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 48734 of 2006

Smt. Shaileja Tewari                  vs                State of U.P. and another.

    :  Present :

(Hon.Mr.Justice Amitava Lala and Hon.Mr.Justice V.C.Misra )

    : Appearances :

For the Petitioner                        .....     Sri Raj Mohan Saggi

For the Respondents                   .....     Smt.Archana Singh and

Standing Counsel.

Amitava Lala,J:-According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has passed M.Phil. degree in Physical Education and is eligible for the purpose of minimum qualification required to fill up the post, as on the date of interview.  However, in the advertisement dated 28th February, 2006 the minimum qualification in respect of M.Phil. was restricted only upto 31st December, 1993.  Therefore, two questions arose about her right as well as the arbitrariness in making such advertisement by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission.   It appears to this Court that in respect of question of right of the petitioner, who has not been eligible as on the date of the advertisement, is fragile. So far as the question of arbitrariness is concerned, sound submission is there for the purpose of interference of this Court. We initially thought that the date of 31st December, 1993 is arbitrary cut off date but subsequently we find from the Government Order dated 6th January, 2003 that such cut off date was being made by them and directed the commission to follow.  Therefore, there is no question of any arbitrariness.  However, the condition which was imposed initially to restrict the qualification of M.Phil. upto 31st December, 1993 is no more available. Therefore, in view of the subsequent  Government Order dated 12th July, 2006 the effectivity will be prospective.  It cannot operate restrospective in respect of an advertisement dated 28th February, 2006.  The question arose whether any corrigendum can be issued about the advertisement dated 28th February, 2006 or not since the interview is not complete.  But it is for the authority to do so.  As on date we observe that if there any such condition is imposed due to further Government Order, the petitioner might get benefit prospectively but as per the present advertisement we cannot pass any favourable order.

With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of.  

No order is passed as to costs.

      ( Justice Amitava Lala )

I agree.

(Justice V.C.Misra )

Dt.06.09.06

PKB

WP 48734-06


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.