Dismissed

Dr. Vishnu Prakash v. U.P. Public Service Commission and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jun 2018WRIA/13885/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged Advertisement No. 1/2018-19 regarding the cut-off date for age limits. The court held that the new advertisement did not include the previously advertised 2013 vacancies. The challenge based on age relaxation rules was dismissed as the powers were discretionary and could not be invoked post-advertisement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the advertisement was dismissed as the advertisement did not include 2013 vacancies and age relaxation cannot be invoked post-advertisement.

Dr. Vishnu Prakash Vs U.P. Public Service… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13885 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Vishnu Prakash Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Commission And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Babu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K.S. Somvanshi holding brief of Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶6

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the Advertisement No. 1/2018-19 dated 18.5.2018 to the extent that it fixes '1.7.2018' as cut-off-date for maximum age limit of the eligible candidates with respect to the vacancies, according to the petitioner, which had been advertised in the year 2013. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the Advertisement No.1 of 2013-14 dated 24.9.2013 issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner had applied and appeared in the Screening Test.

¶7

The process of selection to the post of Homeopathic Medical Officer pursuant to the said advertisement, however, was challenged in Writ Petition No.16959 of 2016 (Dr. Shiv Vinayak Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) along with Writ Petition Nos.17868 of 2016, 17661 of 2016, 17990 of 2016, 18524 of 2016, 18717 of 2016, 19828 of 2016, 18939 of 2016, 20759 of 2016 and 21166 of 2016 which were finally decided vide judgment and order dated 25.5.2016.

¶8

It is contended that while partly allowing the writ petitions, this Court had also issued a writ of mandamus, directing the Commission to prepare a merit list category wise pursuant to the Screening Test and further direction had been issued to call the candidates in order of merit in the ratio of 1:3. However, the respondent-Commission has not proceeded to complete the selection process pursuant to the directions issued by this Court.

¶9

On a pointed query made by the Court as to why the petitioner had not approached the Contempt Court for violation of the directions issued by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment and order dated 25.5.2016 is subject matter of challenge in the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is not aware of the number of Special Leave Petition or any interim order passed therein.

¶10

Shri Y.K. Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel, however, submits that the vacancies which have been advertised vide Advertisement No.1 of 2018-19 dated 18.5.2018, under challenge in the present petition, does not include the vacancies which were advertised vide Advertisement No.1 of 2013-14 dated 24.9.2013

¶11

which was subject matter of the bunch of the writ petitions challenged on 25.5.2016.

¶12

In view of the above assertion, challenge to the advertisement in question based on the assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner that it includes the vacancies advertised in the year 2013 cannot be sustained. Other grounds of challenge to the advertisement in question are not sustainable inasmuch as, it is well within the jurisdiction of the Recruiting Authority to fix age criteria as per the Rules relating to the recruitment and appointment to the post in question.

¶13

There is no provision for age relaxation after the advertisement in question is issued. In so far as the powers of the Governor under the U.P. Public Services (Relaxation of the Age Limits for Recruitment) Rules, 1992 is concerned, the same is discretionary and cannot be invoked after the advertisement for recruitment to the post is issued.

¶14

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 15.6.2018 Brijesh

Dr. Vishnu Prakash v. U.P. Public Service Commission and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Vishnu Prakash v. U.P. Public Service Commission and 2 Others

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

Pinkesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Fakhre Alam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kajal Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kavita and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reetu @ Chinu Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others