Allahabad High Court
Raunak Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 14 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75272 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10421 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raunak Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel, Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Suyesh Pradhan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 & 8 which taken on record.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that an advertisement was issued on 06.07.2023 by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Ordinate Service Selection Commission for Recruitment on the post Auditor and Assistant Accountant (General Selection) Main Examination (P.A.P.-222)/05. The petitioner being duly qualified for appointment to the said post had applied and appeared in the preliminary examination and was declared successful on 26.09.2023. The next examination to which the petitioner would have to appear is the written examination which is schedule to be held in January, 2025.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a B.Com pass candidate along with qualification of computerized accounting and accordingly claims that the said qualification is equivalent to 'O' Level Certificate / Diploma and merely because the petitioner is B.Com. he should not be treated to be ineligible in terms of qualification provided for in the advertisement. It is in the aforesaid facts, he has challenged the advertisement dated 06.07.2023 to the extent for not including qualifications relating to B.com with computerized accounting from the university recognized by the Central Government and University Grants Commission as established for the purpose of selection of Auditor in the Office of Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Prayagraj. He has further prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as eligible in terms of qualification his qualification of computer knowledge i.e. B.Com. with computerized accounting from the University recognized by the Central Government and University Grants Commission.
4. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for respondents stating that the petitioner had after reading the advertisement appeared in the said said examination treating himself to be qualified. He has qualified the preliminary examination and now he is to appear in the written examination and till date no objection has been raised by the respondent in relation to the qualification of the petitioner. The petitioner himself seeks to challenge the advertisement on the basis of which he has appeared in the said examination and submits that the petitioner cannot challenge the said advertisement after appearing in the same.
5. Apart from the above, the present writ petition has been filed only on the apprehension i.e. candidature rejected by the respondents treating B.Com. to be not equivalent to 'O' Level Certificate / Diploma.
6. In this regard, he submits that merely on the basis of apprehension a writ petition would not maintainable unless and until and unless the qualifications of the petitioner are considered by the respondents and any order is passed holding that he is not qualified to appear in the same. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Kiran Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.( Writ C No. 7217 of 2024) where this Court has considered rival contentions with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. There is no doubt that till filing of the present writ petition, no order has been passed by the respondents determining the qualification of the petitioner and specially that presently as per his qualifications he would not be entitled to appear in the said examination and also that B.Com. with computer accounting would not be equivalent to 'O' Level Certificate / Diploma. Undoubtedly it is a mere apprehension that the candidature of the petitioner would be rejected that the present writ petition has been filed.
7. To answer the question as to whether a writ petition would be maintainable on a merely apprehension on violation of rights has been duly considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish S. Pardasani Vs. Inspector State Excise reported in [2019(2) SCC 660]. In the said decision, the Apex Court while deprecating the judgment carrying certain directions issued in a writ petition filed apprehending issuance of an adverse order by an appellate authority held that "the High Court should not have pre-empted the passing of any adverse order by an authority and further held that the settled position is that a court could stay or quash only those orders, which are impugned in the lis before it and in other words, only if an order is actually passed, that will be available for challenge and a writ petition founded only on an apprehension shall not be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India".
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that a writ petition would be maintainable only on allegations of violation of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India and not on mere apprehension. It cannot be said that there is any presumption that the respondents would pass any order contrary to any statute, rules or regulations and according on such presumption a writ petition would not be maintainable.
9. In light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage.
10. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach this Court in case any adverse order is passed by the respondents with regard to his qualifications.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Ravi/