Bahadur Vikash Pratap Rajbhar And ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 21943 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164823
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12833 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Bahadur Vikash Pratap Rajbhar And 28 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Saleem Khan,Abhishek Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal
 

 
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Maurya, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that candidature of the petitioners has been cancelled on the ground that they have not qualified the Preliminary Eligibility Test (PET) and in future he will become overaged when the next advertisement will be issued about which nobody knows as the vacancies have come to be advertised after eight years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that rules do not provide for any preliminary eligibility test and respondents have proceeded to cancel the candidature of this candidate, who has qualified the preliminary eligibility test. It is admitted that the petitioners have not appeared in the preliminary eligibility test conducted in the year 2022.

4. Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.- 3, namely selecting body submits that controversy regarding holding of preliminary eligibility test not provided for in service rules and yet respondents prescribed for such test, is no more res integra as controversy has already stood settled in the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 4th February, 2022 in the matter of Writ - A No.- 96 of 2022 which was later on unsuccessfully appealed against vide Special Appeal No.- 74 of 2022 decided on 9th March, 2022. Negating the grounds raised in appeal of Division Bench in the penultimate paragraph the Court has observed thus:

"Had any such prescription been available in the Service Rules as finds mentioned in the request letter dated 07.07.2021, it would not have been open to the Commission to have insisted upon holding the PET. If the State Government in the Department of Medical and Health, is of the opinion that the requirement of PET needs to be dispensed with, unless and until corresponding change and alteration in the Service Rules takes place, the claim of the appellant-petitioner cannot be acceded to."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the above legal position.

6. In view of the above, there is no good ground to interfere in the matter to grant indulgence.

7. The petition is dismissed and is consigned to records.

Order Date :- 16.8.2023

IrfanUddin