High CourtsDivision Bench(2015) 07 AHC CK 0032

Randhir Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 1 July 2015 · Citation: (2015) 6 ADJ 411 : (2015) 112 ALR 209 : (2015) 5 AWC 4391 : (2015) 147 FLR 437 : (2015) 2 UPLBEC 1687

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J · Yashwant Varma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33392 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 258 words
1.

The petitioner has challenged the qualifications prescribed by Government Order dated 25 December 2014 for appointment to the post of Short-term Instructor (Horticulture and Food Preservation). The educational qualifications prescribed are B.Sc. Agriculture together with a diploma in Food Preservation. The contention of the petitioner is that he holds an M.Sc. degree in Horticulture and that the syllabus covers the area of Food Preservation. Prescribing the qualifications for a post is the function of the appointing authority. Ordinarily, the Court cannot determine the issue of equivalence or stipulate that qualifications for the effective discharge of duties of a post can be equally met by another suitable qualification. The State which fills up a post is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as it considers necessary and proper for the proper discharge of the duties attached to the post. These are not matters on which judicial review can be exercised. The Court may interfere only in those cases where the qualifications prescribed are ultra vires a legislative enactment or where it is demonstrated that the prescribed qualifications are extraneous to the duties and functions attached to the post. Such is not the case here.

2.

In these circumstances, it is not proper for the Court to accept the submission of the petitioner that the qualifications which he holds should be treated as equivalent to the qualifications as prescribed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed qualifications. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the petition.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.