Petitioner, a SC candidate, sought direction to consider his name for a Lecturer post despite having marks below the category cut-off. Court held petitioner had lesser marks than cut-off and claim was already rejected. Discretion under Article 226 not exercised.
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. - 83
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3303 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Bhartiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deo Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nipun Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Nand Lal Yadav holding brief of Shri Deo Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Nipun Singh appears for respondent nos.2 and 3.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to second respondent to decide representation dated 25.9.2017 for considering his name for selection on the post of LecturerMechanical in Technical Education Department U.P. against the notification no.01/2014-2015 issued by second respondent in direct recruitment.
The petitioner is a scheduled caste candidate and has graduate degree in Mechanical Engineering (B.Tech.) (Mech.) with 67.15% marks. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Mechanical) in the Technical Education Department U.P. at Lucknow against the notification in question. The criteria for recruitment was on the basis of performance in interview and the procedure prescribed for calling in interview was on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in M.Tech./B.E. (Mechanical) degree. It is alleged that candidates having less marks than the petitioner was called for interview. It is contended that still certain posts are vacant and he has moved representation on 25.9.2017 for ventilating his grievance for his candidature and he may be considered against the vacant post.
Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of instructions dated 24.2.2020 apprises to the Court that so far as merit is concerned the cut off marks for SC candidates were 68%. Admittedly as per his own record as averred in para 4 of the writ petition the petitioner had scored 67.15%, which is much below the cut off marks and as such the petitioner is not entitled for consideration. More so his representation has also been rejected by the competent authority in the year 2017.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the petitioner has lesser marks than the cut off marks of SC candidates and his claim has already been rejected by the competent authority and more so the same is also not under
challenge, the Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly. The instructions are taken on record.
Order Date :- 10.7.2020 SP/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation despite the petitioner's marks being below the SC ca
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition is appropriate given the lack of merit in the claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Chandra Bhartiya
State of U.P.
Other 1
Other 2
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
