Dismissed

Mrs. Pragya Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2022WRIA/1921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her rejection for a Fashion Designing instructor post due to lack of PET Course qualification. The court relied on a Lucknow Bench judgment establishing the legal position regarding PET Course and preliminary eligibility tests. Finding the petitioner unqualified and matter already settled, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to accept the petitioner's application was not granted; the writ petition was dismissed.

Mrs. Pragya Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1921 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mrs. Pragya Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwaini Mishra,Dhruv Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

List of fresh cases has been revised.

¶6

Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this writ petition.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel, who represents the respondent no.1 and Shri Siddharth Singhal, Advocate, who represents the respondent no.2 is present.

¶8

The instant writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for direction to the respondent no.2 to accept the form/application of the petitioner for appearing in the examination for the post of instructor in the course of Fashion Designing.

¶9

As per writ petition the petitioner secured certificate concepts in the year 2015, which is approved by the Ministry of Labour and Employment and get the National Trade Certificate in the year 2008 and appeared in Craft Instructor Examination on 09.09.2011 and training in methodology, which she received on 11.09.2011. For appointment on the said post in question the essential qualification is to get PET Course when post was advertised. The petitioner is not qualified for the PET Course. The controversy in this regard has already been settled by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.96 of 2022. The operative portion of the said judgement is quoted hereunder:-

¶10

"Now, in this very context, the Court may refer to U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (Procedure & Conduct of Business), Regulation, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Regulation, 2015') which have been made by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, with the prior approval of the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 and 23 of the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014. Now, Regulation 6 of the said Regulation, 2015 deals with the procedure for selection of candidates. The Regulation 6 of the Regulation, 2015 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶11

"(1) The Commission shall make selection of candidates examination or by interview or by both through objective or other form of test in accordance with the provisions of the relevant service rules/regulations.

¶12

(2) The Commission may with the prior approval of the Government, hold a combined competitive examination for a group of posts and may also take a preliminary test or examination for screening of candidates.

¶13

(3) The Commission shall advertise the vacancies through the Print media or Electronic media or both and invite applications from eligible candidates. Manner of inviting application forms includes online submission of application forms through Internet as prescribed by the Commission. Applications received in response to advertisement shall be scrutinized by the office in the manner determined from time to time.

¶14

(4) In making selection by competitive examination or interview including preliminary examination or test, the Commission may take recourse to modern testing aids including the use of computers at one or more stages of selection viz the stages of receipt and processing of applications, issue of call letters, evaluation of answer books, issue of interview letters and processing of results under the close supervision of one or more officers of the Commission to be nominated by the Chairperson.

¶15

5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in relevant Service Rules or Government orders regarding recruitment, the Commission may hold preliminary examination/screening test for finding out suitable candidates for admission to main examination or interview, as the case may be.

¶16

(6) Preliminary examination shall mean screening test to be conducted by the Commission with the purpose of finding out suitable candidates in required proportion as fixed by the Commission in each category, reserved and unreserved for admission to the main examination or interview, as the case may be.

¶17

(7) Preliminary examination shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Examination Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time, which is deemed to be adopted for the said purpose. The marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination/screening test shall not be counted for determining final order of merit.

¶18

(8) The Commission shall fix the place, dates and time of examination which includes preliminary examination/ screening test and main examination, as the case may be.

¶19

(9) The centers of examinations shall be fixed with prior approval of the Commission.

¶20

(10) All arrangements for such examinations shall be made by the Controller of Examination cum Joint Secretary in consultation with the Secretary and in accordance with such directions as may be issued by the Commission in that behalf."

¶21

On a bare reading of the above quoted Regulation 6, it is clear that the Commission is empowered to take a preliminary test or examination for screening of candidates with the prior approval of the Government. Sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 6, in fact, goes on to state that notwithstanding anything contained in relevant service rules or government orders regarding recruitment, the Commission may hold preliminary examination/ screening test for finding out suitable candidates for admission for main examination or interview, as the case may be. Sub-regulation (6) of Regulation 6 says that the preliminary examination shall mean screening test to be conducted by the Commission with the purpose of finding out suitable candidates in required proportion as fixed by the Commission in each category, reserved and unreserved for admission to the main examination or interview, as the case may be. Sub-regulation (7) of Regulation (6) says that preliminary examination shall be conducted in the manner prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Eligibility Test Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time, which is deemed to be adopted for the said purpose. The marks obtained by the candidates in the preliminary examination/ screening test shall not be counted for determining final order of merit.

¶22

Thus, the only argument raised by Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no provision for holding a preliminary test is belied from the provisions quoted hereinabove. It is not his case that prior approval of the Government has not been taken before holding such preliminary test, nevertheless, as informed by Sri Mehrotra such prior approval has been taken and is referred in the letter of the Commission dated 22.07.2021."

¶23

The said judgement of Lucknow Bench of this Court has already been affirmed in Special Appeal No.74 of 2022 (Smt. Mridul Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide judgement dated 09.03.2022.

¶24

In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed.

¶25

The Writ Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶26

Order Date :- 26.4.2022 S.P.

¶27

Digitally signed by SANJAY PURI Date: 2022.04.27 09:59:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mrs. Pragya Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Pragya Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devrashi Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Chandra Bahan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Khandwari Devi Bal Vidya Mandir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kanchan Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sonia Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others