Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 438 of 2018 Appellant :- Ravindra Nath Kaushal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
This appeal is barred by limitation from 310 days, ignoring the same we have examined the merits of the case.
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 1st September, 2017 passed by learned single Bench in Writ-A No.19160 of 2012.
Learned single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ arrived at the conclusion that the selection of the appellant- petitioner for appointment to the post in question was provisional and that does not create any right to be enforced.
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the learned single Bench failed to appreciate that the appellant-petitioner was selected to be considered for appointment on the post in question and he was directed to furnish a caste certificate before 5th January, 2005. The appellant-petitioner satisfied the deficiency pointed out on 3rd January, 2005 i.e. prior to 5th January, 2005 the date given by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission.
It is asserted that after satisfying the deficiency aforesaid, no reason was there for not considering and giving appointment to the appellant-petitioner on the post i.e. of Prabhari Samuh-2 in the cadre of Horticulture and Food Processing.
On going through the averments contained in the petition for writ and the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
The eligibility to be considered for appointment on the post in question is that the incumbent is required to have B.Sc. or B.Sc. (Agriculture) or Post Graduate Diploma in Food Preservation or Associate Membership in Food Preservation or M.Sc. in Food Technology. The appellant-petitioner is having the degree of M.Sc. (Agriculture) but not the Post Graduate Diploma in Food Preservation or Associate Membership or M.Sc. in Food Technology. The appellant-petitioner as such is lacking egibility.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the qualification of M.Sc. (Agriculture) is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Diploma in Food Preservation or Associate Membership or M.Sc. in Food Technology and as such he was required to be treated as a person eligible to hold the post for which selection was conducted.
In our considered opinion, this argument is absolutely ill founded. The requirement is of expertize in Food Preservation and Food Technology. The appellant-petitioner may be having a masters degree in Agriculture but that does not satisfy the need of the employer to have expertize in Food Preservation or Food Technology.
In view of that, the rejection of the appellant-petitioner's candidature being lacking educational qualification is justified and does not warrant any interference.
The appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit.
However, the cost imposed by learned single Bench is made easy.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Bhaskar (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)