Gyan Prakash Pathak & Others vs U.P. Power Corp. Ltd.,Thru. Its ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 3819 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 26
 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4540 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Gyan Prakash Pathak & Others
 
Respondent :- U.P. Power Corp. Ltd.,Thru. Its Chairman Cum M.D. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Sudhir Pandey
 
Respondent Counsel :- Amit Singh Bhadauria
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that for the posts of Technician Grade II (Electrical) in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. advertisement dated 21.5.2011, Annexure-1, was issued in which it was provided that the candidates should have qualified DOEACC eighty hours' course on computer concept and production of certificate at the time of interview was made necessary. 

2. Vide Annexure-3 i.e. interview letter dated 21.10.2011 it has been provided that in case the said certificate is not available, the same be produced. Annexure-4 is a publication issued requesting the candidates to produce the certificate within three months.

3.. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the court towards Annexure-5 also which is dated 21 May, 2012, according to which the candidates whose candidature has been withheld for non-production of the certificate, may produce the certificate by 31 July, 2012.

4. Learned counsel contends that the said improvement or change in criteria provided under the advertisement has created an uneven ground.  By virtue of the changed circumstances, candidates who obtained certificate subsequently, have also been made eligible.  Learned counsel has also argued that the persons who did not have the certificate by the date of interview would not have applied and, therefore, certain eligible persons might not have applied.

5. The petitioners have not been selected.  It has been pleaded that persons who had higher marks, however, did not have the certificate, were allowed to be interviewed.  In case the requirement under initial advertisement was enforced, they would have been disqualified and the petitioners would have had a better chance to be selected.

6. Sri D.K. Srivastava, Advocate, and Sri Amit Singh Bhadauria, Advocate, have put in appearance for the respondents and pray for three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.  The court has also been informed that similar other cases are pending adjudication.

7. List this case alongwith C.W.P. Nos.2748(SS) of 2012 and 4080(SS) of 2012.

8. It is made clear that any appointment made in the interregnum period would remain subject to final decision of this petition.

9. At the final stage, the effect of not impleading the necessary parties/selected candidates would be required to be seen.

Order Date :- 29.8.2012

A.Nigam