SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 666

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND YASHWANT VARMA, J.
RANDHIR SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33392 of 2015, decided on 1st July, 2015)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Shailendu Kumar Upadhyaya for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and R.P. Singh for the Respondents.

Headnote:Appointment—Short-term Inspector—Essential qualifications—Prescribed by G.O. dated December 25, 2014—Cannot be review by High Court—Prescribing qualifications or its equivalent is function of appointing authority—High Court can interfere with it only when it is shown to ultra vires of legislative enactment—High Court refused to entertain petition as prayer therein was to direct appointing authority to treat qualification possessed by petitioner to be equivalent to prescribed qualifications. [Paras 2 and 3]

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The petitioner has challenged the qualifications prescribed by Government Order dated 25 December 2014 for appointment to the post of Short-term Instructor (Horticulture and Food Preservation). The educational qualifications prescribed are B.Sc Agriculture together with a diploma in Food Preservation. The contention of the petitioner is that he holds an M. Sc degree in Horticulture and that the syllabus covers the area of Food Preservation.

2. Prescribing the qualifications for a post is the function of the appointing authority. Ordinarily, the Court cannot determine the issue of equivalence or stipulate that qualifications for the effective discharge of duties of a post can be equally met by another suitable qualification. The State which fills up a post is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as it considers necessary and proper for the proper discharge of the duties attached to the post. These are not matters on which judicial review can be exercised. The Court may interfere only in those cases where the qualifications prescribed are ultra vires a legislative enactment or where it is demonstrated that the prescribed qualifications are extraneous to the duties and functions attached to the post. Such is not the case here.

3. In these circumstances, it is not proper for the Court to accept the submission of the petitioner that the qualifications which he holds should be treated as equivalent to the qualifications as prescribed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed qualifications. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the petition.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

———————


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top