Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.K. Upadhya, Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent -State.
(2.) THE petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs: i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to hold the selection as per advertisement dated 01.11.2008 and U.P. Procedure for direct recruitment for Group C post (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process as per advertisement dated 01.11.2008 and U.P. Procedure for direct recruitment for Group C Post (Outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission ) Rules 2002. iii) to issue such other order or direction which is deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court may also be issued in favour of the petitioner in the ends of justice and iv) to allow the writ petition with costs. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the advertisement made by the respondent dated 31.10.2008 is against the U.P. Procedure of Direct Recruitment of Group C Posts (Outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission Rules) 2002. The contention is that from the perusal of the advertisement the consideration of the candidates to be appointed in various posts is only according to the educational qualification and interview. There is no mention to this effect in the advertisement that any written examination will be held. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajai Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi reported in : 1981 (1) SCC 722. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that selection only on the basis of interview without holding any written test on the basis of criteria of educational qualification is not permissible and is violative of Article of the Constitution of India.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submits that only on the basis of educational qualification interview will be held by the Selection Committee as constituted as mentioned in the advertisement and the merit of the candidate will be judged. It is not permissible as contented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suitability is to be judged on the basis of the written examination and the interview marks cannot be beyond a particular limit. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid fact no selection can be held.;