- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard Sri Sanjay Misra for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Agar wal, for the respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 25th April, 1998 (Annexure-I to the writ petition ). The petitioner had applied for being appointed as Trainee with respon dent No. 1 and he was given appointment on 6th April, 1998. However, by the im pugned order (Annexure-I to the writ petition), his appointment as Trainee has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner is over qualified. Learned Counsel for the respon dent stated that the qualification for Trainee was Intermediate, but the petitioner had suppressed the fact that after doing Intermediate the petitioner has done Diploma in Electrical Engineer ing.
(3.) IN my opinion the stand of the respondent is wholly arbitrary and illegal. I can understand that if a person has less than the minimum qualification he is not eligible for appointment, but I cannot un derstand this argument that the petitioner is over qualified. When the minimum qualification for the post of Trainee is IN termediate and there is no dispute that the petitioner has done INtermediate, then in my opinion he cannot be disqualified merely because he is over qualified, rather the respondent should have given weight age to the fact that the petitioner has got higher qualification. The stand of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal and hence it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence the writ petition is allowed and impugned order is quashed. No order as to cost. W. P. allowed. .;