Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar Yadav And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Gram Vikas ... on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3155 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Yadav And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Gram Vikas Vibhag And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Yadava,Krishna Gopal,Ramesh Kumar Yuadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.,Anchal Tewari,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Anchal Tewari, learned counsel for the Commission.
The petitioners, who are ex-service men, have approached this Court claiming that they have applied for appointment on the post of Village Development Officer in pursuance of Advertisement No.3 of 2016 published by U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow against 5% quota meant for ex-service men. The minimum eligibility included amongst other is CCC Certificate. The U.P. Gramya Vikas (Gram Sevak) Seva Niyamawali, 1980 (Rules of 1980) prescribe the qualification required for appointment to the post in question and the same do not include any requirement of CCC Certificate. The petitioner while working with Army had obtained a CCC Certificate but from a private institution. The insistence of the State was for a CCC Certificate from NIELIT.
The said controversy came up before this Court and was finally decided by judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 passed in Writ-A No.1782 of 2019 "Pramod Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and others". The Court found that since the service Rules do not prescribe requirement of any CCC Certificate, hence, the same cannot be made a mandatory condition, and allowed the writ petition. Paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment read as follows:
"12. In light of the observations made above, this Court finds that the action of respondents in withholding petitioners' candidature for appointment to the post of Village Development Officer, only on the ground that they do not possess ''CCC' Certificate from NIELIT cannot be approved. Petitioners' claim for appointment, therefore, is liable to be considered keeping in view the observations made above as also the applicable rules that regulates grant of employment in question i.e. the Rules of 1980.
13. Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to accord consideration to petitioners' claim for appointment to the post of Village Development Officer and their candidature will not be ignored only on the ground that petitioners' ''CCC' Certificate is not issued from NIELIT. The required consideration would be made within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order."
Against the said judgment, a Special Appeal bearing No.1206 of 2019 was filed, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 31.1.2023. The Division Bench also considered all the arguments on merits and did not find favour with the State Government.
Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly admitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In fact learned Standing Counsel, in his short counter affidavit, has already filed copies of both the judgments.
Thus, the present petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of the order passed in case of Pramod Kumar (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to accord consideration to petitioners' claim for appointment to the post of Village Development Officer and their candidature will not be ignored only on the ground that petitioners' 'CCC' Certificate is not issued from NIELIT. The required consideration would be made within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Sachin
