SHESH NATH S/O SRI ARVIND KUMAR RAI Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ALMORA UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-13
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on April 04,2012

SHESH NATH S/O SRI ARVIND KUMAR RAI Appellant
VERSUS
CANTONMENT BOARD THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALMORA, UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Mr. D. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Sanjay Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the appointment letter dated 15.04.2009 issued in favour of respondent no.2 on the post of Sanitary Inspector and has further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Inspector.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that on 30th September, 2008 an advertisement was published in a daily newspaper Uttar Ujala for the post of Sanitary Inspector under the Cantonment Board, Almora. The advertisement indicated that one post for a general candidate was vacant. The qualification mentioned in the advertisement was that the candidate should be between 18 to 25 years. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied and appeared in the interview alongwith the departmental candidates. It transpires that the departmental candidate, respondent no.2, was given an appointment letter on the post of Sanitary Inspector. The departmental candidate was earlier working as an Assistant Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of the appointment letter in favour of the respondent no.2 has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the advertisement clearly indicated that the candidate should be between 18 to 25 years of age as on 30th October, 2008 whereas as per the information made available to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the age of the respondent no.2 was more than 25 years and, therefore respondent no.33332 was ineligible and could not be issued an appointment letter. The petitioner further stressed that the advertisement did not make any provision for relaxing the age of the departmental candidate. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar & others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar, 2011 1 SCC(L&S) 403 wherein the Supreme Court held that norms or rules as existing on the date when the process of selection had begun would control such selection process and that any alteration to such norms would not affect the selection process unless the alteration of norms have been given retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram, Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 3 SCC 655, wherein the Supreme Court held that an appointment made in disregard to the qualification mentioned in the advertisement was illegal unless the advertisement mentioned that the qualifications were relaxable otherwise it would amount to a fraud on public to appoint an inferior candidate.;


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