Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
RANAJIT KUMAR MEHER - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2689 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20908 OF 2012]
Decided on : 13-02-2017.
Qualification - Appointment - Interpretation of Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner did not possess the qualification prescribed under the Orissa Non-Gazetted Veterinary Technical Services (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, as amended in 1997, despite claiming to have the qualification as per the 2004 advertisement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there cannot be any appointment in violation of the Rules, and qualification is to be seen with respect to the Rules and not the advertisement inviting applications. The appellant did not possess the required qualification as per the Rules.
Issues: Qualification for appointment in violation of Rules
Ratio Decidendi: Qualification for appointment is to be determined in accordance with the Rules and not the advertisement inviting applications.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the appellant did not possess the qualification as prescribed under the Rules.
JUDGMENT :
KURIAN, J.
Leave granted.
1. In the affidavit filed on 15.10.2013 by the Joint Director, Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, Government of Odisha, it is stated that the petitioner does not have the qualification prescribed under the Orissa Non-Gazetted Veterinary Technical Services (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, as amended in the year 1997. The whole crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he possesses the qualification as per the advertisement issued on 16.01.2004.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, we are of the view that there cannot be any appointment in violation of the Rules. Qualification is to be seen with respect to the Rules and not the advertisement inviting applications. The appellant, admittedly, does not possess the qualification as prescribed under the Rules.
3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
