Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Randhir Singh vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 1 July, 2015

Author: Yashwant Varma

Bench: Yashwant Varma





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Chief Justice's Court 
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33392 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Randhir Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendu Kumar Upadhyaya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.P. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
 

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.

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.

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.

 
Order Date :- 1.7.2015
 
RK                                                    (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ)
 

 
                                                                 (Yashwant Varma, J)