Arun Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16861 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:37726
 
Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4020 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Arun Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Addl. Sources Of Energy, Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was non-suited on the ground of not having the technical qualification as per the prescription in the advertisement.

2. It is argued at the bar that the petitioner did not possess the qualification of having the Certificate of Fitter Trade from National/State Vocational Training.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner possess the certificate issued by Indian Armed Forces, which according to the Indian Armed Forces, is equivalent to the vocational certificate issued by any National Council of Training for Vocational Trades and in the light of the said, it is proposed to be argued that the petitioner did possess the necessary qualification and has been wrongly non-suited.

4. Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondent, based upon the advertisement, argues that it was specifically provided for in the advertisement that the certificate obtained on the basis of experience would not be accepted and in any case, the employer i.e. the respondent, has not provided for equivalence in the advertisement.

5. He also places reliance on the judgments of this Court passed in Writ - A No.6508 of 2022 on 29.09.2022, Writ - A No.3475 of 2022 on 04.08.2022 & Writ - A No.8223 of 2022 on 07.12.2022 wherein an exactly same issue was considered by this Court and the petitions were dismissed. Even otherwise, it has been held in the case of Deepak Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.; 2019 (7) ADJ 453 (FB), by the Full bench of this Court that the employer has a right to prescribe for the qualification in the advertisement.

6. Thus, considering the said judgments and the fact that the petitioner did not possess the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, no relief as prayed can be granted by this Court.

7. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.5.2023

nishant