Dismissed

Shishupal Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2024/3314/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's representation for appointment as a Computer Operator Grade-A. The court held that the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory educational qualification mandated by the advertisement itself.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the rejection of the petitioner's representation for appointment remains upheld.

Shishupal Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33929

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3314 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shishupal Singh Yadav

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Yadav,Mahesh Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 19.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶9

The matter pertains to appointment on the post of Computer Operator, Grade-A.

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents had issued an advertisement dated 23.02.2016 inviting applications for the post of Computer Operator, Grade-A. The petitioner considering himself eligible for the said post had applied and qualified written and typing test. However, when he was called for document verification, he has not been found fit for selection which constrained him to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 22257 (SS) of 2016 Inre; Shishupal Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P and Ors. Initially, the writ Court vide order dated 24.10.2016, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition had required the learned Standing counsel to seek instructions/clarification but thereafter vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 10 to the writ petition (page 88), the writ petition had itself been disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority which was required to be decided in accordance with law.

¶11

In pursuance thereof, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order impugned dated 29.01.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition.

¶12

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the said post by contending that the petitioner has not passed his intermediate with Mathematics which was a condition specified in Clause 3.2 (1.1) of the advertisement dated 23.02.2016 and thus the petitioner is not entitled for being appointed. Copy of the advertisement has been filed as annexure 2 to the writ petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that admittedly the petitioner has not passed intermediate with Mathematics yet as he has succeeded in the written

¶14

examination and the typing test consequently, the respondents should have appointed him on the post of Computer Operator, Grade-A.

¶15

The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently fallacious inasmuch as once the advertisement itself categorically provided in Clause 3.2 of education qualification to be possessed by a candidate, which so far as it pertains to the petitioner specifically required passing of intermediate with Physics and Mathematics and admittedly, the petitioner has not passed intermediate with Mathematics as a subject as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having the qualification prescribed for the said post more particularly when the qualification as specified in the advertisement has not been challenged by the petitioner and the petitioner appeared in the selection fully knowing the qualification prescribed in the notification.

¶16

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.5.2024 Pachhere/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shishupal Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishupal Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sant Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Nand Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shyam Mohan Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt., Lko. and Another

Indrajeet Singh PNO.152731063 and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Home Affairs Lko. and Others

Keshavram vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Minor Irrigation, Lko. and Others

Saurabh Singh @ Saurabh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another