Allahabad High Court
Alok Kumar Misra vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 2 May, 2016
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Court No. - 10 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6655 of 2016 Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Misra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,Birendra Pratap Singh,Sameer Kalia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8545 of 2016 Petitioner :- Pradeep Sonker Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhairo Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6733 of 2016 Petitioner :- Kartikey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Civil Sectt.Lko.& Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rameshwar Prasad Singh,Sri Krishna Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7174 of 2016 Petitioner :- Asif Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Pati Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7037 of 2016 Petitioner :- Prashant Vikram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Appointment & Personnel Lko Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7104 of 2016 Petitioner :- Gaurav Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment Civil Sectt.& Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7130 of 2016 Petitioner :- Vipin Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment&Personnel Deptt.&Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Shukla,Uma Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7168 of 2016 Petitioner :- Saumya Tiwari And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Yadav "Vijay",Shailesh Sachan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7175 of 2016 Petitioner :- Rohan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Pati Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7178 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ankur Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personal & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7179 of 2016 Petitioner :- Vivek Tiwari & Anr Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy App. & Personal Deptt Lko & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7293 of 2016 Petitioner :- Pooja Verma And 5 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personal & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7300 of 2016 Petitioner :- Maulik Srivastava And 25 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Pandey,Kuldeep Pati Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7421 of 2016 Petitioner :- Krishn Pratap Singh Respondent :- U.P. Subordnate Services Selection Commission Thru Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. V.K. Singh,Smt. Manisha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7540 of 2016 Petitioner :- Saurabh Sharma Respondent :- U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Thru Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. V.K. Singh,Smt. Manisha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7592 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sarthak Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appountment & Personal & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7593 of 2016 Petitioner :- Chirag Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appountment & Personal & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7787 of 2016 Petitioner :- Anchal Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Pathak,Ravindra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7663 of 2016 Petitioner :- Mayank P. Singh And 19 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,Suresh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7885 of 2016 Petitioner :- Nagendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personal & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7974 of 2016 Petitioner :- Mohammad Sajid & Ors Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Appointment & Personnel Lko Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Pandey,Kuldeep Pati Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8165 of 2016 Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,Kumar Rahul Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8310 of 2016 Petitioner :- Indrajeet Kumar Shah Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Appointment & Personnel & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C,S,C,,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8367 of 2016 Petitioner :- Nilesh Kumar Rajak And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr Prin.Secy.Appointment &Personnel Deptt.&Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,Kumar Rahul Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra A N D Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8413 of 2016 Petitioner :- Rahul Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.Of Appointment & Personal &Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
The applicants of C. M. Application No. 40320 of 2016 and C. M. Application No. 40324 of 2016 are provided a right of hearing as interveners. The applications are disposed of.
Heard Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Commission and Shri S. K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel for interveners/diploma holders.
All these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
The petitioners herein are degree holders in Civil and Mechanical Engineering. The Commission has issued an advertisement for holding a combined selection for the post of Junior Engineer in various fields of Engineering such as Civil, Mechanical and Electrical for various departments and Corporations in the State of U.P. The terms and conditions of recruitment to these posts are governed by the Rules made under the proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A copy of the said Rules pertaining to the Irrigation Department, Public Works Department etc. are on record. The advertisement which has given rise to this controversy is also on record.
To cut the long story short the qualification prescribed for selection and appointment on the post of Junior Engineer referred herein above is Diploma in the respective field of Engineering.
Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department Civil Engineers Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 is quoted herein below:-
"8. Academic Qualification- A candidate for direct recruitment or promotion to a post in the Service must possess any of the following qualifications:
(a) Diploma in Civil Engineering awarded by an Institution or University established by law in India.
Or
(b) Diploma in Civil Engineering awarded by the Board or Technical Education Uttar Pradesh.
Or
(c) National Certificate in Civil Engineering awarded by All India Council of Technical Education.
Or
(d) Three years Diploma in Civil and Rural Engineering by the Board of Technical Education Uttar Pradesh.
Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-'C') Service Rules, 2014 is quoted herein below:-
"8. A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts in the service must possess following qualifications:
(i) must have possessed the High School Examination of the Board of high school and intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an Examination recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(ii) Must possess three years Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh or a qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto."
The advertisement for convenience prescribes the requisite qualifications for the posts in question in a composite manner at one place referred as Schedule II which reads as under:-
in dze la0 in dk uke vfuok;Z vgZrk@vf/kekuh vgZrk 1 voj vfHk;ark ¼flfoy½ ¼d½ Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fo"ofo|ky; ;k laLFkk }kjk iznRr flfoy vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksek ;k] ¼[k½ mRrj izns'k] izkfof/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn] }kjk iznRr flfoy vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksek] ;k ¼x½ vf[ky Hkkjrh; izkfo/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk flfoy vfHk;a=.k esa iznRr राष्ट्रीय प्रमाणपत्र या ¼?k½ izkfof/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k] }kjk flfoy ;k xzkeh.k vfHk;a=.k esa iznRr 03 o"kZ dk fMIyksekA vf/kekuh vgZrk& izf'k{k.kkFkhZ ds :i esa ,d o"kZ dk izf'k{k.k lQyrkiwoZd iwjk dj fy;k gksA 2- voj vfHk;ark ¼flfoy½ ¼,d½ ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn mRrj izns'k dh gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr mlds led{k dksbZ ijh{kk vo'; mRrh.kZ fd;k gksA ¼nks½ izkfof/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k ls flfoy vfHk;kaf=d esa rhu o"khZ; fMIyksek] ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr mlds led{k dksbZ vgZrk gksuh vko';d gSA 3 voj vfHk;ark ¼;kaf=d½ ¼d½ fdlh laLFkk ;k Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fo"ofo|ky; }kjk ;kaf=d vfHk;a=.k esa fn;k x;k fMIyksek ;k ¼[k½ izkfof/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k }kjk ;kaf=rd vfHk;a=.k esa fn;k x;k fMIyksek] ;k ¼x½ vf[ky Hkkjrh; izkfo/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk ;kaf=d vfHk;a=.k esa fn;k x;k राष्ट्रीय प्रमाण&पत्र 4 voj vfHk;ark ¼fo|qr½ 1&izkfof/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn] mRrj izns'k] ls ;FkkfLFkfr ;kaf=dh ;k fo|qr vfHk;a=.k esa rhu o"kZ dk fMIyksek ;k fdlh laLFkk ls ljdkj }kjk mlds led{k ?kksf"kr ;FkkfLFkfr ;kfU=dh ;k fo|qr vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksekA 5 voj vfHk;ark ¼flfoy½ ¼d½ Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fo"ofo|ky; ;k laLFkk }kjk iznRr flfoy vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksek ;k] ¼[k½ mRrj izns'k] izkfof/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn] }kjk iznRr flfoy vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksek] ;k ¼x½ vf[ky Hkkjrh; izkfo/kd f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk flfoy vfHk;a=.k esa iznRr राष्ट्रीय प्रमाणपत्र] या The petitioners herein relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jyoti K.K. And others Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and others reported in 2010 (15) SCC 596, State of Haryana and Another Vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan and another reported in 2006 (11) SCC 153 and the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Uttam Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.(SWP No. 2670 of 2001) have contended that they being degree holders which is higher qualification in the same faculty/stream of Engineering, are presupposed to possess the lower qualification of diploma, therefore, they are fully eligible for being considered in the selection in question but the opposite parties even after having allowed them to appear in the written examination and having called them for interview, orally debarred them from appearing therein on the date of interview, which is apparently unsustainable in the eyes of law.
It was contended by Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners that a bare reading of relevant Rules of recruitment pertaining to the academic qualifications prescribed as also the relevant provision of the advertisement relating thereto shows that the same do not in any manner debar a person possessing a higher qualification from appearing in such selection. A person possessing a higher qualification in the same stream is presumed to possess a lower qualification. He invited the attention of the Court to Page 27 of the writ petition wherein under the Right to Information Act the Public Information Officer of the Commission informed an applicant that a degree holder was eligible for being considered for selection. It was also contended that in previous years Degree Holders were permitted to appear in such examination for the post of Junior Engineer held by the Subordinate Service Selection Commission as also the Public Service Commission. The fact that out of 2700 persons selected 1600 were Diploma Holders and only 1100 are degree holders shows that Decree Holders were not being ousted completely from selection, therefore, the apprehension raised by the opposite parties was misconceived.
Learned counsel for the petitioners laid emphasis on the fact that the Diploma Holders are given lateral entry in the 2nd year of degree course in various universities.
Shri Gaurav Mehrotra appearing for the Commission contended that the reliance placed upon the judgments referred herein above by the petitioners is misconceived as the said judgments were based upon the language used in the rules applicable therein. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2015 (2) SCC 170; State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Anita and Ors., 2003 (3) SCC 541; P.M. Latha and Anr. Vs. State of Kerla and Ors., and 2003 (3) SCC 548; Yogesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi and Ors. to rebut the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners and stated that the decisions relied upon by him have already been considered in the aforesaid decisions.
Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the interveners submitted that there was no challenge to the relevant rules under which the required qualification for the posts in question was prescribed nor was there any challenge to the advertisement issued. According to him the pleadings in the writ petition were quite vague. No relief had been claimed to the effect that the degree holders should be held to be eligible for being considered for selection for the post in question. Relying upon very decisions which have already been referred by Shri Gaurav Mehroratra he contended that the petitioners have absolutely no right to maintain this writ petition nor of being considered for selection to the post in question. He invited the attention of the Court to the relevant rules of recruitment governing the selection to show that the only qualifications prescribed therein were those which were not possessed by the petitioners herein and there was no scope for reading into rules something which was not provided.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein do not possess the qualifications prescribed in the rules nor in the advertisement which govern the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil, Electrical and Mechanical) in various Departments/ Corporations etc. They allegedly possess a higher qualification i.e. a Degree in Engineering which according to them presupposes the possession of the lower qualification of Diploma. The basis of this argument appears to be two judgments relied upon by them, however, on a reading of the said judgments specially the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra) reveals that the relevant rule in the said case i.e. rule 10 (a)(ii) was as follows:-
"10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders or Standing Orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post."
The rule itself prescribed that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall be sufficient for the post, therefore, the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said judgment have to be read and understood in the light of the language contained in the said Rule. The said judgment can not be read and understood as having laid down a general proposition of law of universal application to the effect that in every case where a person possesses a higher qualification than the one prescribed he would automatically be eligible for selection to the post in question. In fact the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision had the occasion to consider this aspect of the matter that is in the case of Anita and others (supra) wherein after quoting the relevant extract of the judgment in Jyoti K.K. (supra) it proceeded to repell a similar contention raised before it as has been raised herein by observing "it is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid observations in Jyoti KK case, permitted the aforesaid course". Thereafter, the Supreme Court quoted Rule 10 (a) (ii) which was considered in Jyoti K.K. case (supra) and further opined "A perusal of the rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision authorizing the appointment of persons with higher qualifications".
Considered against the aforesaid background, this Court finds on a perusal of the relevant rule which have already been quoted herein above that no such provision analogous to rule 10 (a) (ii) as was considered in Jyoti K.K. case (supra) exist in the present case.
The prescription of a qualification for a particular post is better left to those who are well equipped to determine such matters, as, such prescription is dependent upon the nature of the duties pertaining to a particular post. As held by the Supreme Court in P. M. Latha's case (supra) "Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy." It is trite when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same can not be in any manner whittled down and different qualification cannot be adopted as has been held in Jyoti K.K. case (supra) itself and in Anita and others (supra) as also in the case of Yogesh Kumar (supra) wherein it has been observed that recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates, the same can not be allowed yet again. It is for the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source of recruitment i.e. Diploma Holders or Decree Holders.
As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Gaffar Khan's case (supra) is concerned, in the said case the relevant rule did not prescribe "Diploma" as required qualification, a fact which has been specifically observed in para 7 thereof. The court after a reading of the rule opined that the relevant rule did not expressly exclude the degree in Unani Medicine and Surgery for the post of Unani Dispenser, therefore, observations made in the said judgment are based on the rule which fell for consideration in the said case. The rule which falls for consideration herein is of a different nature, as such, the said judgment does not help the cause of the petitioner.
On a bare reading, relevant rules of recruitment in the facts and circumstances of the case, do not show in any manner that a qualification other than that mentioned in the rules would also qualify and make a candidate eligible for being considered for selection to the post in question as is borne out clearly from the use of the words "A candidate for direct recruitment or promotion in the service must possess any of the following conditions" in Rule 8 of the Rules. Therefore, to say that the rules do not debar a person possessing a higher qualification from appearing in the selection in question is quite misconceived. The language of the rules in the present case is very clear and the petitioners do not possess the qualification prescribed therein. Moreover, the petitioners have not challenged either the rules laying down such qualification or the advertisement itself. They have approached this Court on a presumption based on a misplaced and misconceived reliance upon the decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra) and Abdul Gaffar (supra) which turned on their own peculiar facts and the language of the rule considered therein which is quite different from the Rule applicable herein, therefore, contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable in law.
Furthermore, this issue has also been considered by the Uttrakhand High Court in Writ Petition No. 643(SS) of 2015; Vikas Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others and connected petitions and after considering all the judgments cited herein above a Single Judge Bench of the said High Court has observed on 13.07.2015 as under:-
"But in the present controversy, a degree education in Civil, Mechanical or Electrical Engineering, by no stretch of imagination, can be attributed to the effect that the candidate had attained the diploma qualification in that stream because for taking admission in the Bachelors Course does not envisage the attaining of the diploma qualification as a pre-requisite. So, holding the diploma cannot be equated with holding of the degree in the engineering stream. The exception can be made even in such situation if the rules of the recruitment contemplate to that effect and it was the situation probably in the Jyoti K.K. and others case (supra) where Kerala State and Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1956 had such provision, but here, in Uttarakhand, the Rules have been enacted in 2003 and there is no such provision analogous to the Rules of Kerala.
That apart, if a degree holder in a particular stream will always exclude the diploma holder in that stream then the scope to get employment for the diploma holders will always be very very little if not closed altogether because where a degree and diploma holders both are permitted to attend the same examination without any discrimination then in all probabilities, the degree holders will always take lead as against the diploma holders. So, the opportunity to get a government job will almost be closed to the diploma holders and in other words the persons who are not capable enough to take the qualification of a degree and cannot afford the monetary expenses to get their degree course, will always be deprived from the government job where the diploma is the minimum qualification to make the candidate eligible for the post."
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, I do not find any reason to differ from the proposition laid down in the said judgment and the reasoning given therein which squarely apply to the facts of the present case also.
Considering the facts of the case, it can not be said that the petitioners herein are presumed to be possessing the lower qualification of diploma in engineering as in order to possess a degree in engineering it is not necessary to first of all pass or possess a diploma in engineering.
Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider these very issues while deciding Writ Petition No. 7012(SS) of 2001; Anoop Ratan Awasthi Vs. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and one another and connected petition. Having gone through the said judgment also, this Court is of the view that the reasoning given therein is applicable to the present case also and supports the view taken by this Court as aforesaid.
For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions, the same are, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.
Order Date :- 2.5.2016
R.K.P. (Rajan Roy, J.)