Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Mr. Alok Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.16423/2013, WP No.16435/2013, WP No.18648/2013 and WP No.16430/2013 has submitted that the petitioners are Adhyapaks and even though they do not have requisite teaching experience of five years, yet they are entitled to appear in the examination in question.

13. Mr.D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.15270/2013 has submitted that under Rule 6(4) of 1982 Rules, the Government has the power to prescribe method of appointment to a post after consultation with the General Administration Department. However, in the instant case no consultation with General Administration Department has been made. It is further submitted that the examination ought to have been held by the Public Service Commission and all eligible persons ought to have been allowed to appear in the examination. It is also submitted that 'Varishtha Adhyapak' should be allowed to appear in the process of appointment for the post of Area Education Officer. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another, AIR 2014 SC 2140 and Renu and others vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another, AIR 2014 SC 2175.