Dismissed

Krishan Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIA/4140/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a declaration of registration result for a horticulture officer post, claiming the petitioner's score exceeded the merit cut-off. The Court held that lack of essential horticulture degree rendered the petitioner ineligible per the advertisement terms and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief; petition dismissed as petitioner lacked requisite horticulture qualification.

Krishan Dutt Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4140 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishan Dutt Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel. Shri Nisheeth Yadav appears for U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (Commission).

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to first respondent to declare the result of the petitioner bearing Registration No.10521077832 and Roll No.107490 by sincerely perusing the answer sheet and for a direction to first respondent to decide the application dated 1.2.2020 within stipulated period.

¶7

It appears from the record in question that the Commission published an advertisement being Advertisement No.A-2/E1/2017 dated 22.2.2017 inviting applications from eligible candidates for 13 posts of District Horticulture Officer Grade-2, D.H.O. Grade-1/Supdt. Govt. Garden. The petitioner having qualification of High School in the year 1996; Intermediate (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) in the year 1998 and Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry subjects in the year 2002 applied against the post of District Horticulture Officer. The petitioner appeared in the Preliminary Examination in which he was declared successful. Consequently, he appeared in the main examination. Now at this stages the applicant is aggrieved that his result of the same has not been declared.

¶8

On the matter being taken up on 12.6.2020, the Court has asked Shri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the Commission to obtain instructions in the matter. In response thereof he has sought instructions and on the basis of instructions he submits that qualification of the petitioner is B.Sc. with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry, whereas as per the advertisement the essential qualification for the post of District Horticulture Officer, Grade-2, D.H.O. Grade-1/Supdt. Govt. Garden, for which the petitioner has applied, is Science Graduate in Horticulture (Ag) or Equivalent Degree in B.Sc. Ag. or Horticulture. As such the petitioner did not have requisite qualification for the said post in question. Consequently, he has

¶9

also drawn attention to sub-clause (7) of Clause 14 of the advertisement, which speaks as under:-

¶10

"(7). The candidature of such candidates who are subsequently found ineligible according to the terms laid down in advertisement will be cancelled and their any claim for the Main Examination will not be entertained. The decision of the Commission regarding eligibility of the candidates shall be final."

¶11

As such on the basis of aforesaid clause the candidature of the petitioner has also been rejected.

¶12

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the petitioner has scored higher marks than the cut off marks in the preliminary examination for the post of District Horticulture Officer, Grade-2, D.H.O. Grade-1/Supdt. Govt. Garden and as such he was permitted to appear in the main examination but once it is found that he did not have requisite qualification for the post of District Horticulture Officer, Grade2, D.H.O. Grade-1/Supdt. Govt. Garden, which is Science Graduate in Horticulture (Ag) or Equivalent Degree in B.Sc. Ag. or Horticulture and he is only having B.Sc. with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry, his candidature for the said post was rejected. It is well settled that the candidate is required to comply with the conditions as given in the advertisement and no deviation from the same is acceptable.

¶13

In view of above, the Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 SP/

Krishan Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Dutt Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kripa Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rampal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shakti Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravindra Mehta and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others