BHUPENDRA SINGH MAJERA AND OTHERS Vs. RITESH AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-2-49
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on February 25,2012

Bhupendra Singh Majera And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Ritesh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) APPLICATION (CLMA No. 306 of 2012) is allowed by deleting the name of appellant No. 17, since he has been impleaded by mistake as appellant No. 17.
(2.) AN advertisement was published, where it was indicated that there are certain vacancies for the posts of Assistant Accountants. It was indicated in the advertisement that such vacancies are available in several districts of the State and the number of vacancies available in the districts had also been indicated. It was represented by the advertisement that the person responding to the advertisement should apply for the vacancies available in a district. The advertisement did not debar a candidate from responding to the said advertisement for more than one district. The respondent writ petitioner responded to the advertisement only in respect of the vacancies available in District Almora. In the writ petition, he accordingly arrayed only those respondents, who had responded to the vacancies available in Almora. It was contended in the writ petition that one of the essential qualifications, a person is required to possess, is obtaining of 'O' level certificate issued by the Department of Electronics Accredited Computer Course, an organization of central government or one year computer course certificate from any university or institute, recognized by any State or central government. It was the contention of the writ petitioner that many persons, who have responded to the said advertisement, do not have the said qualification. The obligation to select amongst the respondees of said advertisement was given to G.B. Pant University. The said university held out to the writ court that there is no available means of knowing, which institution has been recognized by the State or by the central government. The learned Judge, noting that the said qualification was a statutory requirement, directed the government to ensure that the selected candidates have such qualification.
(3.) APPLICANTS herein, having had applied for the vacancies available in other districts, were not made parties to the writ petition and, accordingly, notice to them was not given before the judgment and order under appeal was rendered. In other words, they were not heard, nor any step was taken to apprise them that such a writ petition has been filed, before the judgment and order under appeal was rendered. The learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner submitted that at one stage of the writ petition, G.B. Pant University was directed to inform all respondees to the said advertisement that the writ petition has been filed and the same will be decided. Law does not recognize taking of such step. The fact remains, no step was taken to seek leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no affidavit on record of the writ petition filed by or on behalf of G.B. Pant University stating that all the respondees to the advertisement have been informed about pendency of the writ petition.;


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