Allahabad High Court
Dr. Pallavi Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 November, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6168 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dr. Pallavi Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupendra Nath Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh learned counsel for the Commission and Sri Neeraj Pandey learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus upon the Commission to interview the petitioner for the post of Principal at K.P. Girls Inter College, Mathura in the course of selection process undertaken by the Commission under advertisement No. 49 of 2019.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, undisputedly the petitioner applied against the above advertisement. She was successful in the written examination. She was called for interview. However, it is the own case of the petitioner as stated in paragraph-32 of the writ petition that she had no 'Research Guidance' experience as she could not conduct such work while teaching B.A. classes in Sanskrit and further said research guidance at graduation level could not be provided as per the guidelines of the UGC and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra.
Further, it is the case of the petitioner herself that on 05.4.2021 she wrote to the Commission (vide annexure-7 to the writ petition) that she did not have Research Guidance qualification. At the same time, referring to her high API score of 400, she prayed to the Commission to grant her interview. Further, reliance placed on Clause 3(Kha) of the qualification dated 08.4.2019 is also of no avail to the petitioner inasmuch as she did not present before the Commission any document to establish any Research Guidance experience, at any level, either on the date of document verification or on the date of interview.
In view of the undisputed position that the condition of Research Guidance was mandatory and in absence of any challenge raised to prescription of that qualification, no relief is possible to be granted to the petitioner as on her own showing. She does not possess necessary qualification. Her communication dated 05.4.2021 made in such circumstance, can only be read as a request to the Commission to exempt the condition of Research Guidance. In absence of any power shown to exist as may have allowed the Commission to grant such exemption, no case is made out for grant of mandamus as prayed.
Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Faraz