Decided on March 17,2021

Md. Zahir Shah Appellant


M.V.MURALIDARAN,J. - (1.) Since the Hon'ble Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.Kotiswar Singh, the then Acting Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh.Nobin Singh, vide judgment dated 16.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No.721 of 2016, expressed differing views, the matter has been placed before me.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned Recruitment Rules in respect of the post of Scientific Assistant (Toxicology) and also impugned advertisement in respect of the said post, as the same violate the well established principle of law and to direct the respondents to initiate the process for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant after the qualification of M.Sc. (Toxicology) is incorporated in the essential qualifications and to exclude other unrelated subjects from the rules such as Chemistry/Biochemistry etc. and further amend the rules in such a way so as to include other subjects as well in the relevant recruitment rules.
(3.) The writ petition was earlier listed before the Division Bench comprising the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. justice Kh.Nobin Singh. By the judgment dated 6.11.2017, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin, dismissed the writ petition and the operative portion of the judgment reads thus: '6. As has been stated here-in-above in the preceding para, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul case (supra) has been relied by upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The question raised in that case was as to whether experience in Epigraphy may be considered to be 'field experience in Archaeology' or not. The appellant therein was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition which was allowed by the High Court and therefore, he preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a special leave. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, has held that the statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision. It has also been held that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. This decision will not help the petitioner at all but rather, the State Government. Considering the materials on record, it can safely be held that there is nothing wrong in the Recruitment Rules, 2015. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 7. For the reasons stated here-in-above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.' ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.