Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10353 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nikhil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain,Virendra Chaubey
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 to 4 and Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
The order impugned has been passed in favour of respondent no.5 noticing the fact that a Writ Petition No.39242 of 2016 filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed. An order dated 20.2.2017 has been brought on record which clearly mentions that quality point marks secured by the petitioner is 78.90 whereas respondent no.5 Gaurav Kumar Goel has secured 72.99 marks. The qualification of petitioner was not treated to be sufficient in terms of the Rules of 1981.
In Km. Pallavi vs. State of U.P. and others being Writ Petition No.47490 of 2017 decided on 12.12.2017, this Court has examined the issue and it has been held that the qualification as is prescribed under the NCTE Regulation would prevail over the qualification provided under the Rules. In such circumstances, the claim of petitioner ought to be examined with reference to the qualification prescribed under the NCTE Regulation. Writ Petition No.39242 of 2016 has been disposed of today in terms of the order in Km. Pallavi (supra).
In view of the above, respondents are not justified in appointing respondent no.5 after ignoring claim of petitioner only for the reason that petitioner's writ petition no.39242 of 2016 has been dismissed in default. Order dated 5.3.2018 is accordingly quashed. Claim of the petitioner would be considered in view of the law laid down in Km. Pallavi (supra).
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Ashok Kr.