Allahabad High Court
Rajiv Ranjan vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 July, 2012
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17992 of 2004
Petitioner :- Rajiv Ranjan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Radha Kant Ojha,Satanshu Ojha
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,H.N.Singh,Pradeep Kumar
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 26.3.2004, and for directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to face interview for the post of Lecturer in Hindi in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 32 and also declare the result of the petitioner and make appointment etc. in accordance with law.
It appears that an advertisement being Advertisement No. 32 was issued by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission(in short the 'Commission') for various posts of Lecturers in different disciplines in the affiliated colleges.
The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. As the Petitioner was not called for interview after shortlisting of the candidates, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.8049 of 2004.
This Court by the order dated 4.3.2004 disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following directions:
"In view of the submissions made by Shri Pradeep Kumar, we dispose of this Writ Petition directing the petitioner to appear on 12th March, 2004 before the Secretary, U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and the learned Secretary is requested to hear the petitioner and if he is satisfied that petitioner secured the marks more than the last candidate called for interview has secured, he shall be called for interview and in case his case is not accepted, the Secretary shall pass a speaking and reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner."
Pursuant to the directions given in the said order dated 4.3.2004 passed by this Court, the Secretary of the Commission passed an order dated 26.3.2004(Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) inter-alia, concluding that for the reasons given in the said order dated 26.3.2004, it was not possible to call the petitioner for interview. In the said order dated 26.3.2004, the Secretary of the Commission observed that the assessed marks obtained by the petitioner were 170 while the minimum marks of the candidate called for interview in the general category were 173. It was further observed that the grade obtained by the petitioner in M.A. Examination from JNU, New Delhi was converted into marks on the basis of Final Grading Point Average (FGPA) mentioned on the back side of the mark-sheet issued by the JNU.
The petitioner thereupon filed present Writ Petition before this Court. By the order dated 15.6.2004, this Court, inter-alia, directed that the Commission would not reject the candidature of the petitioner, and the petitioner would be provisionally interviewed. However, the result of the petitioner would not be declared until further orders to be passed by this Court.
It appears that pursuant to the said order dated 15.6.2004, the petitioner was provisionally interviewed. On 13.3.2012, this Court intervened and directed the Commission to produce the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover on the next date of listing.
Pursuant to the order dated 13.3.2012, the case was taken up before the Court on 7.5.2012 when the Court passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the respondent has been received sealed cover envelope of the original result of petitioner.
Two sets photostat copy of original record shall be prepared by the counsel for the respondent, which shall be placed on record, thereafter the original record be returned to the counsel for the respondent.
List in the next cause list."
Pursuant to the said order dated 7.5.2012, photostat copy of the result of the petitioner on the basis of interview has been placed before the Court.
Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission states that the petitioner obtained 164 marks in the interview while the last selected candidate got 178 marks in the general category, and therefore, the petitioner could not be selected in any view of the matter.
It is not disputed that at the relevant point of time, the academic qualifications were to be considered only for the purposes of short-listing the candidates. Ultimate selection was to be done on the basis of marks obtained in the interview.
Reference in this regard has been made by Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission to the provisions of Section 12 of The Uttar Pradesh. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 and Regulation 6 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983.
From the above narration of facts, it is evident that even if we were to accept the contention of the petitioner that on the basis of his academic marks he was entitled to be called for interview, still we find that in the interview in which he participated pursuant to the order of this Court, he obtained only 164 marks while the last selected candidate in the general category got 178 marks. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the petitioner would not be entitled to selection on the post of Lecturer in Hindi.
In view of above, it is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the computation of the assessed marks given to the petitioner on the basis of his academic qualifications was rightly done or not because the marks obtained by him in the interview in which he participated pursuant to the order by this Court, were less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the general category and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to selection. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2012
P.P.
