The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of promotion to a Clerk post on the ground that the petitioners lacked typing experience. The bench held that a Government Order making typing an essential qualification was valid and binding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18351 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hari Babu Singh Vijai And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Krishan Tripathi,Chandra Kant Bharadwaj
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
This writ petition has been filed, impugning the order dated 10th March, 2018 whereby the petitioners have been denied promotion from the post of Class-IV to Class-III on the ground that they do not possess qualification i.e. they do not have typing experience which is an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Clerk in University and Colleges, which are governed by U.P. State University Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the first statute of Meerut University qualification for the post of Clerk does not mention typing experience and, therefore, the impugned order, which has been passed on the ground that the petitioners do not have typing experience, runs contrary to the provisions of the statute.
On the other hand, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, representing the respondent No.3-University submits that as per the Government Order dated 31st May, 2015, typing is one of the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Clerk in the University and affiliated Colleges. Shri Tripathi further submits that as per provisions of Section 66A of the Act any direction issued by the State Government in respect of any policy, which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, is binding on the University. Section 66A of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:-
66-A "The State Government may issue such directions from time to time to a University on policy matters, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as it may deem necessary such direction shall be complied with by the University."
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
It is true that the first statute of the University does not provide typing as one of the essential qualifications for the post of Clerk in the University and affiliated Colleges, but the State Government has issued an order dated 31st May, 2015 under which typing is an essential qualification for the post of Clerk.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out that how this Government Order is against any provision of the Act. If the Government Order provides typing as an essential qualification for appointment on the post of Clerk, which is not contravening any provision of the Act and rules made thereunder, it is binding on the University and affiliated Colleges.
Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is clear that the petitioners do not possess essential qualification to be appointed on the post of Clerk and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, which can be interfered with in this petition.
The petition lacks merit and substance. It is, thus, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.8.2018 sushama
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Government Order making typing experience an essential qualification for a Clerk post binds a University under Section 66A of the Act.
Whether the petitioner could be promoted to the Class-III post despite lacking the statutory qualification of typing experience.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hari Babu Singh Vijai
Another
State of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
