Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Uday Singh And 6 Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Writ A No. 3979 of 2022
Decided on : 03-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 32, 309 – Common Recruitment – Violation of Terms and Conditions – Quashing – Learned counsel petitioners learned Senior Advocate assisted respondent Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondent – Held, Court has also held that it is difficult to accept that in not holding entrance examination in any particular language amounts to denial of admission ground of language also been held that every Educational Institution has right to determine or set out its method of education and conditions of examination – Case was not open to appellants after participating selection process to question result on being declared unsuccessful – Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondent No.1.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to conduct online common recruitment test in Hindi language for selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.01.2022 and declare the final result of the selection only after conducting Common Recruitment Test in Hindi language properly with all consequential benefits. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the procedure of online Common Recruitment Test conducted on 20.06.2022 or in alternative issue a suitable direction to the opposite parties not to make any selection or appointment only in pursuance of Common Recruitment Test conducted on 20.06.2022. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction not to give effect to the marks obtained in online Common Recruitment Test conducted on 20.06.2022. The petitioners have also prayed for similar and consequential reliefs.
3. The brief facts of the case, for adjudication of the controversy raised in this petition, are that an advertisement dated 06.01.2022 was issued by the opposite party No.3/Director Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow for several posts. The petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3 had applied for post of Sister Grade II, Petitioner Nos.4, 5 & 6 for the post of Medical Lab Technologist and petitioner No.7 for the post of Junior Medical Lab Technologist against the said advertisement. The petitioners, being found eligible, were called for the online Common Recruitment Test (hereinafter referred to as the 'CRT') containing multiple choice questions of 100 marks. The CRT was held on 20.06.2022 and the list of marks obtained by the candidates was declared on 21.06.2022. After being unsuccessful in the CRT, the petitioners approached this Court mainly with the prayer that CRT may be conducted in Hindi language and to declare the result on the basis of same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the CRT has wrongly and illegally been conducted only in English language in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement for selection. The Rules and the advertisement does not provide the English language as the medium of test, therefore, the CRT should have been held in bilingual languages, i.e., in Hindi also. The advertisement and admit card were issued in bilingual languages for the said posts. He also submitted that Diploma essential for the posts in question is also being held in bilingual languages. He further submitted that as per the Government Order dated 7th August, 1992, the Rules/Regulations of the State Government in service matters of the employees would be applicable on the employees of Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the 'SGPGI'). He also submitted that the State Government has issued the Uttar Pradesh Competitive Examination (Medium of Written Examination) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994), which provides that the questions paper shall be in English in Roman script and Hindi in Devanagari Script. Therefore, the question paper should have been in English as well as in Hindi.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others; (2011) 12 SCC 85 and Anil Chandra Vs. Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany; 2003 LawSuit (All) 76/2003 21 LCD 396.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have challenged the selection after participation without any demur and after being unsuccessful, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that the SGPGI is an autonomous Institute created under the statute namely Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1983 (hereinaft
Point of Law : It was not open to the appellants after participating in the selection process to question the result on being declared unsuccessful.
The examination for the Art Teacher post must be conducted in both English and Telugu as per the notification, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural guidelines.
Proficiency in Hindi or English cannot be adjudged through multiple choice questions, and no legal right accrued to demand a bilingual question paper.
The requirement of proficiency in Telugu for judicial positions is justified for efficient administration of justice and does not violate constitutional principles of equality.
Recruitment processes must adhere strictly to advertised terms; deviations compromise fairness and legality.
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
