Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: UPSSSC in Smt. Vijay Laxmi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 7 May, 2022Matching Fragments
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Shri Alok Mishra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Shri Amitabh Rai, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (herein after referred to as "UPSSSC").
2. By means of this intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the appellant-petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ A No. 2460 of 2022 filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the advertisement issued on 25-05-2021 for holding a Preliminary Eligibility Test (PET) for preparing a shortlist of candidates for making selections to various Group C posts under the State Government, and the advertisement issued on 15-12-2021 for holding the main examination for making selections to the posts of Health Worker (Female)/Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM). The petitioners further challenged the validity of a Government Order dated 20-11-2020, whereby the Government laid down the procedure for making applications and holding a two-tier examination for making recruitment to various Group C posts as also the order dated 10-08-2021 passed by the State Government which recites that as the selection process by holding PET had already started, it will not be proper to separate the posts of Health Worker (Female) from the selection process as per the proposal of the Health Department and this proposal can be considered in future. The appellant-petitioner also challenged the notification dated 05-04-2022 issued by the UPSSSC, whereby the candidates who had scored even '0' marks in the Preliminary Eligibility Test (PET) were declared qualified on the basis of their normalized score. The appellant-petitioners sought a direction to allow them to appear in the main examination for the post of Health Worker (Female) which was scheduled to be held on 08-05-2022.
3. Appellant-petitioner had pleaded in the writ petition that they have completed two years of Health Worker (Female)/Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) training and they are working on contractual basis in different Community Health Centers/Primary Health Centers in different districts.
4. On 25-05-2021, the UPSSSC issued an advertisement for conducting a Preliminary Eligibility Test ("PET") as a part of two tier examination system for making selections and appointment to various posts of group-C under the State Government. On 15-12-2021, another advertisement was issued by the UPSSSC for conducting the main examination for making selections for 9212 post of Health Worker (Female).
11. The next contention of the appellant-petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that even the candidates who had scored '0' marks, have been declared by the UPSSSC as qualified by applying the principle of normalization. Dealing with this submission, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant-petitioners had themselves admitted that the UPSSSC had issued a corrigendum providing that the candidates who have scored "0" marks would not be considered to be eligible. The learned Single Judge further held that Condition No. 8 of the Advertisement categorically states that normalization principle would be applied in short listing of the candidates. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and further held that as the appellant-petitioner did not apply for the PET and the final examination was to be held on 08-05-2022, the question raised by the appellant-petitioner at this belated stage was merely academic. The appellant-petitioner cannot be treated to be persons aggrieved.
18. However, we find that Condition No. 8 of the Advertisement provides that if the test is conducted in more than one shifts, normalization method will be applied. Information in this regard was already been given to the candidates by means of a notification dated 22-05-2019 issued by the UPSSSC. The said notification further stated that the decision in this regard by the UPSSSC will be final. It is not the case of the Appellants-Petitioners that the PET was not conducted in more than one shifts. Therefore, we are unable to accept the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners.