The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of the selection of a successful candidate for Lecturer (Home Science). The court held that since the petitioner was not selected, the court could not interfere with the selection of the successful candidate.
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.
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL.
Writ petition (S/B) No. 30 of 2005
Ms. Vinay Kumar Raghav D/o Late Sri Vijendra Pal Singh, R/o 750/15, Model Town, Bulandshahar, U.P.
… Petitioner.
Versus
… Respondents.
Sri Manoj Tewari, Adv., learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Standing for the State of Uttaranchal. Sri Arvind Vashist, learned Asst. S.G. for the respondent No.4.
Coram: Hon’ble P.C.Verma, J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.
Dated July 05, 2006.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the rival
parties.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the result of selection for the post of Lecturer (Home Science) issue vide Notification dated 25.1.2005 in so far as it relates to the respondent no.3.
The record shows that the petitioner appeared for the post of Lecturer in Home Science and also appeared for interview, but he was not selected. The grievance of the petitioner as against the respondent no.3 on the ground that the respondent no.3 did not
2
possess the M. Sc. (Home Science) degree and was not eligible for the said post cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner was called for Interview by the Selection Board. Since the petitioner is not a successful candidate after the interview having been conducted, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the selection of a successful candidate.
Having considered the material before us including the counter-affidavit on record and having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit to interfere with selection made by the respondents, therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and must fail.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs.
RCP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of selection of a successful candidate must be dismissed when the petitioner was not selected?
Vinay Kumar Raghav
Uttaranchal Public Service Commission
State of Uttaranchal
Anjani Chamoli
University Grants Commission
Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University
P.C. Verma
B.S. Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
