Allowed

Ram Chandra and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2018SPLAD/16/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal, the Single Judge held that petitioners lacked required 'Arts' qualification for an instructor post. The High Court accepted the appeal, interpreted the Intermediate Education Act to include drawing under humanities, and declared the petitioners eligible. The appealed judgment was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Appellants declared eligible for appointment; respondent directed to consider their candidature; judgment of Single Bench set aside.

Ram Chandra and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 2.7.2018 Delivered on 14.8.2018

¶3

Court No. - 21

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 16 of 2018

¶5

Appellant :- Ram Chandra And 17 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶6

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶7

(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, J.)

¶8

Order on Delay Condonation Application

¶9

This appeal is barred by limitation from 5 days.

¶10

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶11

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶12

To question correctness of the judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 39733 of 2013, this appeal is before us.

¶13

Succinctly, facts of the case are that under an order dated 31.01.2013, applications were invited from eligible candidates for engagement as Part-time Instructor on contractual basis for 11 months with provision for renewal. As per the order dated 31.01.2013, the educational eligibility to be appointed as Part-time Instructor in Art Education is that a candidate must have qualification of Intermediate with Arts Subject and Bachelor of Arts; or a degree of Bachelor of Arts with drawing or painting; or qualification of Intermediate with Degree or Diploma in Arts granted by a University established by law or Institution having recognition.

¶14

The appellant-petitioners in pursuance of the Government Order

¶15

¶16

aforesaid submitted applications to be considered for appointment as Instructor in Art Education but their candidature was rejected being lacking qualificational eligibility. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned dated 06.12.2017.

¶17

Learned Single Bench arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners are not having said certificate of academic qualification in the subject “Arts” and, therefore, their claim was rightly rejected by the respondentemployer. Learned Single Bench also negativated submission of learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners that in several districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the persons exactly similarly situated have been treated eligible to be considered for appointment on the post concerned, therefore, the denial is discriminatory. Learned Single Bench held that non-equality can be claimed in illegality and an illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made basis to issue a writ.

¶18

In appeal, the argument advanced is that the petitioners are having the qualification of Intermediate with Arts and they are also having Bachelor Degree in Arts and, as such, they are eligible to be considered for appointment and learned Single Bench failed to appreciate this fact of the case.

¶19

Per contra, as per learned Standing Counsel, the qualification possessed by the petitioners is not as required for an Instructor in Art Education. It is asserted that for Art Education, a person is required to have a special subject of “Arts” in Intermediate and the petitioners are not having that. On going through the relevant facts, we do not find any merit with the stand taken by the respondents.

¶20

It is not in dispute that only deficiency shown with the appellantpetitioners is that they are not having “Arts” as a subject in Intermediate or otherwise. It would be appropriate to refer regulations under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1921”) wherein the faculty of humanities is prescribed. As per schedule appended with the Act, 1921, “humanities” includes drawing graphics

¶21

¶22

or drawing technical. No distinction is made in the Act, 1921 in drawing graphics and drawing technical.

¶23

Government order in question simply prescribes for having “Arts” to be considered for appointment as Instructor in Art Education. The appellant-petitioners are having the qualification aforesaid and, as such, it cannot be said that they are lacking eligibility as per the order dated 31.01.2013.

¶24

While parting with the case, it would also be appropriate to say that no parity could have been claimed to perpetuate an illegality but, at the same time, it is also responsibility of Court to check discrimination existing or germinating on the count of acts of the State. Learned Single Bench would have denied consideration for appointment to the appellant-petitioners, if they were not possessing requisite qualification, but before that should have satisfied themselves by asking the State about acceptance of the same interpretation of the requirement of eligibility by it in other Districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State is under an obligation to have uniform application of its norms/guidelines/directions. The State cannot be permitted to act as per its whims that ultimately results into discrimination among similarly situated persons.

¶25

In view of whatever stated above, this appeal deserves acceptance. The appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The appellant-petitioners are declared eligible to be considered for appointment as Instructor in Art Education in accordance with Government Order dated 31.01.2013. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the appellant-petitioners for the post aforesaid.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.8.2018 Shubham

¶27

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Ram Chandra and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra and 17 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

sumitra singh Vs state of u.p. and 6 others

vishnu shankar singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Shobha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs District Inspector of Schools and Another

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The Joint Director of Education and Another Vs Subhash Chandra and 2 Ors.