भर्तियों के विज्ञापन के साथ अर्ह डिग्रियों की सूची भी करें जारी - इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने दिया आदेश।
⚫ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 722 of 2016
Appellant :- Shiv Ram Singh And 17 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
And
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 723 of 2016
Appellant :- Upendra Yadav And 71 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 367259 of 2016
Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel holding for Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The appellants pray for condoning 36 days' delay caused in filing the special appeal. The respondents have not filed any reply opposing the prayer till today.
In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the application and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
Order on Special Appeal:
These special appeals are directed against the order dated 21.9.2016, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. In the writ petitions, the writ petitioner-appellants sought direction to the respondents to consider their claim for appointment to the post of Police Constable and Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment, 2015. Along with the application, they had submitted Certificates of Prathma issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which, according to the respondents, is not equivalent to High School Certificate issued by the Board and on this ground their claim was rejected. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court and of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others, [J.T. 2010 (6) SC 306] and Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another [2012 (1) ADJ 346] respectively. The law seems to be well settled that a Certificate of Prathma and Madhyama (Visharad), conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, are not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. That being so, we find no merit in the appeals and the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Before parting, we observe that the respondents whenever publish any advertisement for the posts such as Police Constable and or Constable PAC, they should, as far as possible, give the list of equivalent certificates in the advertisement so as to avoid inconvenience to candidates such as the writ petitioner-appellants, instead of leaving it open to the candidates to imagine and claim equivalence, as has been done in the present case.
Order Date :- 16.1.2017
VMA
(Yashwant Varma, J)
(Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)
