- (1.) S. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 18. 5. 2005, by means of which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Chief Supervisor has been refused.
(2.) THE petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 4. 9. 2001 issued by the opposite party No. 2 applied for the post of Chief Supervisor. THE petitioner appeared in the examination and was declared successful. THE result was published in the newspaper on 30th December, 2004 and the petitioner was required to appear before the opposite party No. 2 alongwith all the documents by means of letter dated 10. 1. 2005 for verification of documents. THE documents of the petitioner were found to be correct and she also submitted all the documents required by the opposite parties. THE petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 17. 1. 2005 and the Selection Committee found that she was not possessing the requisite qualification of Sociology as one of the subject at Graduate level and therefore, her candidature was not considered and her selection was cancelled. THE petitioner is M. A. in Sociology and belongs to Backward category. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having higher qualification in comparison to qualification of B. A. with Sociology as one of the subject and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be refused merely because she is not having the qualification of Sociology as one of the subject in B. A. The submission is that the requirement of Sociology as one of the subject is only with a view that a candidate should have knowledge of the subject of Sociology so that while interacting with the public at large, one may be able to take help from theoretical knowledge with regard to social problems. He also submits that law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court also reiterates that a person having higher qualification cannot be denied appointment. The opposite parties have filed counter-affidavit and in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was not having the Sociology as one of the subject at Graduate level and therefore, her appointment has been cancelled. His further submission is that the possession of higher qualification does not entitle the petitioner to be appointed as the requirement of the rule has not been complied with. The requirement under the rule is that the person should have passed the graduation with one of the subject namely Sociology. The petitioner was not having Sociology as one of the subject at graduate level and therefore, her appointment has been cancelled.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the possession of higher qualification will not debar the petitioner from being appointed. The petitioner has passed M. A. in Sociology and therefore, she is having Post Graduate Degree in Sociology and if she has not been passed graduation with Sociology as one of the subject then she cannot be debarred from being appointed as she is having Post Graduation Degree in Sociology. The requirement under Rule 8 of the U. P. Bal Vikas (Adhinasth Sewa Niyamawali), 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'rule') for possessing the qualification of Sociology or Home Science or Poshan and Bal Vikas, as one of the subject at graduate level is only the minimum qualification to be possessed by a person and if any candidate possesses the higher qualification then prescription of minimum qualification will not stand in the way of appointment.;