Dismissed

pawan tiwari v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC23 May 2018SPLA/416/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal dismissed. The court held that although LLB Degree is preferred for the Legal-cum-Probationer Officer post, the Integrated Child Protection Scheme requires only a legal background, not a specific degree, rendering the appeal unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the advertisement was dismissed, and consequently, this special appeal is dismissed.

pawan tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 416 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pawan Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This Special Appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 13 April 2018 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the advertisement dated 15 March 2018 for making appointment of Legal-cum-Probationer Officer has been dismissed.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that instead of prescribing LLB Degree as a preferential qualification, it should have been prescribed as an essential qualification and for this reliance has been placed upon the Integrated Child Protection Scheme which is sponsored scheme of the Government.

¶7

The advertisement provides that the candidate should possess Bachelors Degree with at least 50 per cent marks in Social Work or Sociology / Psychology and preference will be given to candidates with LLB Degree.

¶8

The petitioner had not passed the graduation examination with either Social Work or Sociology / Psychology and, therefore, is not eligible. It is for this reason that the petitioner contends that Degree of law should also have been considered as an alternative requirement.

¶9

The sponsored scheme provides that the Legal-cum-Probationer Officer should have a legal background and a good understanding of child rights and protection issues. It also provides that he would be responsible for providing free legal aid services to children / juveniles and shall also provide necessary support to the CWC and JJB in the legal matters relating to all children coming under the purview of the Juvenile Justice Act as and when required. The requirement of having a legal background does not mean that the candidate should have a LLB Degree. In our considered opinion, it is for the appointing authority to examine the qualification and the decision cannot be said to be arbitrary merely because preference has been given to candidates having LLB Degree

¶10

and the said Degree is not considered as an essential requirement.

¶11

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.5.2018 Akram

¶13

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶14

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

pawan tiwari v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

pawan tiwari v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indrajit Singh and 34 Ors. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Vimlesh Kumar Dube and 18 Ors. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ram Baran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Satish Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushila Pandey Vs the Commissioner Varanasi and 2 Others

Nirved Shukla (Parag Booth Thekedar) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others