Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
Anjaneya Sharma – Appellant
Versus
UP Public Service Commission – Respondent
Writ A No.2906 of 2024
Decided on : 28-02-2024
Amendment Application - Writ Petition - [Act Section List] - The court discussed the essential qualifications for the post of Assistant Architect Planner as per the advertisement issued by the respondent-commission and emphasized that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility. The court referred to judgments such as Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, Unnikrishnan CV and others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others, and Randhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others to support its decision. The court concluded that since the petitioner did not fulfill the essential qualification as per the advertisement, no relief could be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Architect Planner and was excluded from the list of candidates eligible for interview due to not fulfilling the essential qualification no.2 as required by the advertisement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not fulfill the essential qualification as per the advertisement and therefore, no relief could be granted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's qualifications were equivalent to the qualifications required by the respondent-commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility and that judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications or decide equivalence of qualifications.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits and no relief was granted to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. The amendment application dated 27.02.2024 has been filed with the prayer to add paragraph 22-a to 22-l in the present case, annexed as annexure no.9 and 1-A.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.
3. Amendment application is allowed.
4. Shr Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendments during the course of the day.
Order on Writ Petition
1. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent-U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj.
2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :-
1-A. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction quashing the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by the Incharge Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. (Annexed as Annexure No.I-A to this writ petition)."
3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition is that petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Architect Planner, in pursuance of advertisement no.3 dated 19.11.2019 published by the respondent. The application was made on 16.12.2019. As per the advertisement (page 33) the last date for submission of online applications was 19.12.2019. A corrigendum was issued on 13.12.2023, in pursuance of which the petitioner resubmitted his form online on 16.12.2023, and hardcopy on 1.1.2024. The last date for re-submission was 02.01.2024. On 17.02.2024 a notification was published by the respondent fixing dates for interview on 27.2.24 and 28.2.24, for 30 candidates who had qualified for the interview.
4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is fully qualified for the post and his name has wrongly been excluded from the list of candidates eligible for interview.
5. The writ petition was heard on 23.02.2024 and petitioner was permitted to give a representation to the respondent, which was to be decided by 25.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 was the next date fixed in the matter. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, petitioner filed a representation before the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj, which was rejected by the respondent on 24.02.2024 taking the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria no.2 as mentioned in the advertisement, i.e., he does not possess a degree or postgraduate diploma in Town and Country/ Regional Planning.
6. By means of an amendment application dated 26.02.2024, certain grounds and prayer were sought to be added in the writ petition. The said amendment application was allowed on 26.02.2024. Again, an amendment application was moved on 28.02.2024, adding certain averments to the writ petition. The said second amendment application was also allowed today.
7. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is fully qualified and has the requisite post graduate diploma, but has been wrongly non-suited by the respondent-Commission. It is further argued that in the State of U.P., there is a single department covering urban planning development, and town and country planning/regional planning, which is the Housing and Urban Planning Department. Reliance was placed in the amended writ petition on the official website of the Housing and Urban Planning Department to show the organisational structure, by means of which it was sought to be proved that town and country planning is included in the Department of housing and urban planning. Hence once the department is the same, the
The State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, and judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications or decide equivalen....
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process, as estoppel applies. Eligibility is determined by the employer based on stated qualifications within the....
The court can intervene if there are contradictions or non-application of mind in the committee's conclusions regarding the equivalence of qualifications.
THE CUT-OFF DATE FOR ACQUIRING THE ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS FOR A POST IS THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED RECRUITING AGENCY.
Strict adherence to essential qualifications is necessary for recruitment; prior participation in tests does not confer rights without meeting qualification criteria.
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
