V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition in question has been filed by the Petitioner for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pass appropriate order with regard to appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Hindi Lecturer in respective category (SC Female).
(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that in the month of January -February 2009 an advertisement No. 5 of 2008 -09 for recruitment of Lecturer in Government Inter College, under U.P. Special Subordinate Educational Service (Women Branch) was issued by Respondent. Petitioner has contended that she applied for the post of Hindi Lecturer as Schedule Caste candidate in women category. The Essential qualification for the post of Hindi Lecturer has been prescribed as "A postgraduate degree in Hindi and a bachelor degree in Arts with Sanskrit or certificate of Shastri examination of Sanskrit University Varanasi. Petitioner has further contended that she had qualification of High School (passed in year 1999), intermediate (passed in year 2001) B.A. (passed in year 2004) with subject namely Hindi Ancient History & Economy, M.A. (passed in the year 2006) with subject Hindi. Petitioner has further contended that she was perusing her B.A. Degree with single subject namely Sanskrit from the year of 2006, which she passed in the year 2009 and obtained her mark sheet on 02.07.2009. Petitioner while filling her form categorically mentioned that she is appearing with the single subject Sanskrit in B.A. Thereafter admit card to the Petitioner was sent for written examination which was to be held on 27.01.2010 with Roll No. 770363. Petitioner qualified the written examination and thereafter the Respondents sent a letter dated 03.12.2010 for interview which was to be held on 23.12.2010 and the Petitioner was required to be present alongwith all testimonials. It has further been contended that the interview was conducted on 23.12.2010 for the post of Hindi Lecturer and in which the Petitioner showed all her testimonial and also mentioned that she had passed B.A. with one subject i.e. Sanskrit in the year of 2009 and mark sheet for the same has been issued on 02.07.2009. Further it has been contended that at the time of interview the Respondents gave a letter dated 23.12.2010 to the Petitioner and asked her to produce the degree of B.A. with single subject Sanskrit later on. Further it has been contended by the Petitioner that when Petitioner went to take the degree of B.A. with single subject Sanskrit she was informed by the University that for a single subject Sanskrit no degree is given, and accordingly Petitioner informed the Commission. It has further been contended that on 03.01.2011 the result of the Petitioner was declared and the Petitioner was declared successful in her respective category. It has further been contended that thereafter almost 3 months have passed, but no joining to Petitioner was given thereafter Petitioner enquired from Respondent -Commission and it was informed that as she has passed her B.A. with the single subject Sanskrit after the cut of date of submission of the form therefore she is not eligible for the said post as she was not having required qualification at the time of advertisement. It has further been contended that Respondents are acting illegally and arbitrarily by denying the appointment to the Petitioner on the post of Hindi Lecturer through at the time of filing of form she categorically disclosed the information and also during the interview the same was informed before the interview committee but no objection of any kind was raised at that time. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case candidature of the Petitioner has been arbitrarily dealt with whereas each and every information has duly been furnished by her and thereafter she was permitted to undertake examination as well as permitted to undertake interview as such action of Respondents is bad and as such writ as prayed for be accorded.
(3.) COUNTERING the said submission learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Puspendra Singh, Advocate contended that on the relevant date Petitioner was lacking requisite eligibility criteria as such this Court should not intervene in the matter.;