Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Medical Health and Family Welfare ) Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Dec 2022/8738/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for a Community Health Officer post. The Court held that mandatory qualifying documents must be obtained by the last date of application, and a later advertisement relaxing these conditions could not benefit an applicant who had already applied under the old rules.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8738 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Medical Health And Family Welfare ) Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rachit Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puneet Chandra

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rachit Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and 3 and Sri Puneet Chandra for opposite party no.2.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement for appointment to the post of Community Health Officer (C.H.O.) for the session 2022-23 on 19.7.2022 through six months Certificate training in Community Health for Nurses (CCHN) was issued. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement had applied and was allowed to participate in the written examination where he was declared to have been qualified and subsequently he was required to appear for verification of his documents. At the stage of verification of the documents it was observed that the petitioner does not fulfill the minimum mandatory qualification in as much as the registration certificate issued by U.P. Nurses & Midwives; Council which was issued on 06.12.2022 much after the last date for submission of the application forms which was 9th August, 2022 and, hence, his candidature was rejected and his name did not figure in the list of selected candidates. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing opposite party No.2 to consider the petitioner as eligible for training and allow him to participate in the training for the post of Community Health Officer - CCHN at his allocated centre.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had all the essential eligibility qualifications. He submits that he is duly qualified in General Nursing and Midwifery from Shri Digamber School of Nursing Bharatpur, Rajasthan but the requirement pertaining to registration of Nursing and Midwifery from U.P. Nurses & Midwives Council was not issued to him prior to the cutoff date. It is only on account of the fact that the petitioner did not have the requisite certificate from U.P. Nurses & Midwives Council that his candidature has not been considered for the said appointment.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner had received the said registration during the said selection process and that now that he is fully qualified and fulfilled all the requisite qualifications, the respondents should be directed to consider his candidature for the said appointment.

¶10

Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that in the advertisement issued on 19.7.2022 it was clearly stated that the certificate of registration from U.P. Nursing and Midwives' Council should have been obtained before 9.8.2022 as per sub-clause 3 of clause (1) of the said advertisement and consequently the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum mandatory qualification and was not entitled to even apply for the same. He submits that all the persons who have applied are allowed to participate in the said examination but the certificate are verified only at the subsequent stage of verification when it was discovered that the certificate of registration of the petitioner with U.P. Nursing and Midwives Council was subsequent to the cut-off date prescribed and, hence there is no infirmity in not considering the petitioner for the said appointment.

¶11

It is further submitted that an identical issue has already been attained finality by the judgment and order of this Court dated 12.12.2022 passed in Writ A No. 8225 of 2022 (Hemendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others).

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶13

According to the advertisement issued by the respondents on 19.7.2022 it was clearly provided that a candidate should have fulfilled all the qualifications including High School, Intermediate etc. and must be registered as Nurse and Midwife from U.P. Nurses and Midwives Council and have valid registration certificate on or before 9.8.2022. The petitioner at the time of applying for the said recruitment process did not obtain the said registration which was received by him only on 06.12.2022 i.e. much beyond the cut-off date prescribed in the said advertisement and consequently he was not qualified to even apply for the said recruitment.

¶14

A candidate should have all the qualifications on the last date of the advertisement and there is no fault in the said legal proposition as Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanchal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and another Vs. Dharminder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 999 decided on 23.11.2022 has held as under:-

¶15

"9. This Court in the Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 and in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 has held that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application."

¶16

It is noticed that prior to cut-off date the petitioner did not have the registration number of U.P. Nurses and Midwives Council and, hence, there is no infirmity in rejection of his candidature.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the subsequent advertisement issued by the respondents on 02.12.2022 has been duly modified and now for the said recruitment it has been provided that registration can be obtained three months after the date of issuance of the appointment letter and on the strength of the said advertisement submits that he may be given benefit of the subsequent advertisement issued by the respondents.

¶18

Sri Puneet Chandra, per contra, has submitted that the eligibility conditions of the petitioner will have to be adjudged on the basis of the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied. The petitioner had applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 197.2022 where the conditions were substantially different and it was mandatory that a candidate should have valid registration certificate as Nurse and Midwife from U.P. Nurses & Midwives Council at the time of online submission of application and, hence the argument of the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted.

¶19

In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner not having requisite qualification could not have been allowed to participate in the said examination and there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondents to withhold the result of the petitioner solely on the ground that he did not have the registration certificate from U.P. Nursing and Midwives Council. In light of the above, there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶20

Order Date :- 22.12.2022 Ashish

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.12.22 16:04:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Medical Health and Family Welfare ) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Medical Health and Family Welfare ) Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghav Sharan Pandey Vs Collector/Distt. Magistrate, Gonda and 2 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Collector, Sitapur and 3 Others

Dudhnath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Tribhuwan Kori and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Dev Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others

Dhirendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Scey. Dept. of Home Lko. and 2 Others