Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 14 September, 2012
Bench: Sheo Kumar Singh, Virendra Vikram Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
A.F.R.
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46848 of 2012
Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Dubey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,V.P. Mathur
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.
(Dictated by Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh, J.)
Heard Sri A.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.P.Varshney, learned counsel for the Commission and learned Chief Standing Counsel.
The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 on 17.3.2012 advertised different posts including the post of Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering. As per the advertisement, essential qualification for moving application to this post was B.Tech in the concerned subject with a minimum 55% of marks. Petitioner was duly qualified for this job and the marks secured by him were 71.15 %, hence, he filed an application for being so appointed.
Respondent No.2 by the subsequent advertisement dated 25th August, 2012 revised essential qualification of minimum 55% of marks as 77% for general candidates, 75% for OBC class and 70% for SC and ST candidates. Since the percentage of marks of the petitioner was less than the desired marks by way of subsequent advertisement, he was not called upon for interview.
It has been argued that after the advertisement was made, the respondent No.2 had no right at all to add or vary the minimum qualification earlier advertised. It has also been pointed out that the rules provides for minimum qualification of 55% of marks and the same could not have been raised to 77%, as pointed out above. Since the qualification for the appointment was subsequently raised, the subsequent advertisement is per-see illegal. It has also been argued that in any case the respondent No.2 could have gone for screening test but in no case the minimum qualification could have been arbitrarily increased.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that essential qualification for appointment has infact not been raised. Since the number of applicants were in a large number, hence, in order to short list the candidates, the minimum marks for calling the candidates for interview were so raised and in no case, the qualification as mentioned in the earlier advertisement provided in the Rules, has been deviated.
It has to be seen that at this stage as to whether the process adopted by the respondent no.2 was a process to short list the candidates or by subsequent advertisement, the essential qualification was changed or raised. It is undisputed that the essential academic qualification was not at all raised by the subsequent advertisement and only the percentage of marks as cut of marks was informed. The ground of the petitioner is that since he has applied for the post with minimum marks required, he was bound to be called for interview or in any case for the screening test.
We are unable to accede to this argument of the petitioner. The advertisement dated 17.3.2012 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) in para 6 itself provides as follows:-
"Minimum educational qualification is not sufficient for being called for interview. Mere eligibility does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview or for selections. Intimation for interview will be sent later on."
The minimum educational qualification is not sufficient for a candidate to be called for interview or for selection. Thus, the petitioner was apprised before hand that 55% marks in the respective subject was required for moving application and the same was not sufficient for participation in the interview nor the petitioner in any way acquired any right to appear in the interview by possessing the minimum educational qualification.
The Commission, respondent No.2, in order to bring the number of candidates requisite for interview has simply short listed the candidates on the basis of the marks attained by them and while keeping the number of requisite candidates and considering the marks obtained by them, the minimum marks required for interview were later on informed. Thus, in no case, it can be said that the respondent No.2 after the initial advertisement inviting applications for appointment, has subsequently changed the educational qualification. Simply by the fact that the petitioner had minimum qualification for filling up the form does not bestow upon him any right to appear in the interview as the same was communicated to him in para 6 quoted above.
Thus, the claim of the petitioner for his right to appear before the interview or for screening test is unfounded and no right for the same can be said to have vested in the petitioner.
Thus, the petitioner does not have any right to be enforced by way of filing this writ petition.
We do not find any reason to interfere. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.9.2012
M.A.A.
