# Mohd. Ehteshamul Hasan v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 631
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47817 of 2005
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-ehteshamul-hasan-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40501
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-Right to appointment-Vacancies of
Tuberculosis Health visitors-advertised
on
2.3.05
prescribing
the
essential
Qualification-Interview-by
subsequent
advertisement the requisite qualification
prescribed Intermediate with Biologychallenged on the ground once the
petitioner participated in the interview
as per earlier advertisement-it can not
be denied by the change of requisite
qualification-held-the
subsequent
advertisement issued as per guide lines
of State Govt.-in absence of essential
qualification petitioner has no right to
challenge the subsequent advertisement.

Held: Para 6

Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and keeping in view that
the subsequent advertisement has been
issued on the basis of the guidelines
issued by the State Government and also
considering that the petitioner does not
possess the essential qualification for
appointment on the post T.B.H.V. even
according to the guidelines of the Central
Government as have been relied by the
petitioner and also keeping in view the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid two cases relied upon by
the learned counsel for the respondents,
the prayer made in this writ petition is
not liable to be granted.
Case law discussed:
J.T. 1991 (2) SC-380
1994 (6) SCC-151

## Text

2 All] Mohd. Ehteshamul Hasan V. State of U.P. and others 631
before the Court seeking relief. Giving
effect to such a plea will be pre-judicial to
the interest of law and will be against the
public interest. Each case must be decided
on its own merit both factual and legal.

7. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed, with directions that in future
no appointment shall be made by the
District Judges from out of the waiting list
on any short term vacancies. The Rules
clearly do not provide for any such
appointments which not only cause
serious administrative difficulties, but
also engages time and energy of this
Court. No order as to costs. Petition
Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47817 of 2005

Mohammad Ehteshamul Hasan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jai Prakash Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Sinha
Sri D.S. Shukla
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Service
Law-Right to appointment-Vacancies of
Tuberculosis Health visitors-advertised
on
2.3.05
prescribing
the
essential
Qualification-Interview-by
subsequent
advertisement the requisite qualification
prescribed Intermediate with Biologychallenged on the ground once the
petitioner participated in the interview
as per earlier advertisement-it can not
be denied by the change of requisite
qualification-held-the
subsequent
advertisement issued as per guide lines
of State Govt.-in absence of essential
qualification petitioner has no right to
challenge the subsequent advertisement.

Held: Para 6

Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and keeping in view that
the subsequent advertisement has been
issued on the basis of the guidelines
issued by the State Government and also
considering that the petitioner does not
possess the essential qualification for
appointment on the post T.B.H.V. even
according to the guidelines of the Central
Government as have been relied by the
petitioner and also keeping in view the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid two cases relied upon by
the learned counsel for the respondents,
the prayer made in this writ petition is
not liable to be granted.
Case law discussed:
J.T. 1991 (2) SC-380
1994 (6) SCC-151

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Staterespondents no. 1,2 and 3, Sri V.K. Singh,
learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 4 and Sri D.S. Shukla, learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the
Union of India appearing for respondent
no. 5.

2. The facts in brief are that in
response to an advertisement issued on
2.3.2005 by respondent no. 4, the District
Tuberculosis
Officer
as
Member
Secretary of the District Tuberculosis
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
632
Control
Society,
Allahabad
inviting
applications for filling up the post of
Tuberculosis Health Visitor (T.B.H.V.)
the
petitioner
had
applied.
The
qualification as mentioned in the said
advertisement was that the candidate
should have passed Intermediate with
Science. It is not the case of the petitioner
that in response to the said application
filed by the petitioner he had been called
for interview or any other action has been
taken with regard to his selection.
However, a fresh advertisement was
issued
on
14.6.2005
again
inviting
applications for the post of T.B.H.V. in
the subsequent advertisement the essential
qualification for appointment on the post
of T.B.H.V. was Intermediate with
Biology. In this advertisement it was also
provided that those candidates who have
already applied in response to the earlier
advertisement need not apply afresh and
their
earlier
applications
shall
be
considered. According to the petitioner he
has passed Intermediate with Science but
not with Biology as a subject. The
petitioner contends that since he was
eligible on the basis of the qualification
mentioned in the first advertisement dated
2.3.2005, his application ought to have
been considered in response to the
subsequent advertisement also and he
should have been called for interview.

3. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that as per the
guidelines issued by the Government of
India for making appointments on certain
posts (filed as Annexure-S.A. 3 to the
supplementary affidavit) the essential
qualification for the post of T.B.H.V. was
only Intermediate with Science and
experience
of
working
as
MPW/LHV/ANM. He thus contends that
since the guidelines do not specify that
the candidates should have biology as a
subject in Intermediate, such condition as
mentioned
in
the
subsequent
advertisement is illegal. This writ petition
has thus been 14.6.2005 may be quashed
and the petitioner may be considered for
appointment to the post of T.B.H.V.

4.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents has,
on instructions received from his client,
produced
before
me
the
District
Tuberculosis Control Society wherein it
has been provided that the essential
qualification for the post of T.B.H.V. iv
Intermediate Science with Biology as a
subject. It is not disputed by the petitioner
that the society is controlled by the State
Government and funds the provided by it
and that the members of the society are all
functionaries of the State Government.
Thus,
the
subsequent
advertisement
issued in consonance with the direction
given by the State Government cannot be
said to be illegal. Even as per the own
case of the petitioner the essential
qualification for appointment for the post
of T.B.H.V. as per the guidelines issued
by the Central Government was that a
candidate should be Intermediate with
Science and experience of working as
MPW/LHV/ANM. It is not the case of the
petitioner
that
he
possesses
such
qualification. According to him he is only
Intermediate with Science. It is nowhere
stated that he has experience as prescribed
in
the
guidelines
of
the
Central
Government.

5. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondent
no. 4 has further submitted that even after
selection for appointment on a particular
post the candidate does not acquire any
indefensible
right
to
be
appointed.
2 All] Mohd. Arif V. M/s Mirza Glass Works, Firozabad and others 633
 Reliance in this regard has been placed
on two decisions of the Apex Court
namely, Shankarasan Dash Vs. Union
of India JT 1991 (2) S.C. 380 and State
of M.P. and others Vs. Raghuveer
Singh Yadav and others (1994) 6 S.C.C.
151. As such, it has been contended that
in such view of the matter, the petitioner
who had merely filed his application for
being given appointment does not acquire
any right to be appointed or be considered
for appointment.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and keeping in view
that the subsequent advertisement has
been issued on the basis of the guidelines
issued by the State Government and also
considering that the petitioner does not
possess the essential qualification for
appointment on the post T.B.H.V. even
according to the guidelines of the Central
Government as have been relied by the
petitioner and also keeping in view the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the aforesaid two cases relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents, the
prayer made in this writ petition is not
liable to be granted.

7. This writ petition lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to
costs.

 Petition Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 884 of 2005

Mohd. Arif

...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Mirza Glass Works, Firozabad and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Y.S. Saxena
Sri D.K. Kulshreshtha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V. Sahai
C.S.C.

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII Rule 5
readwith Payment of wages Act 1936-S15 and 18-Special Appeal-against the
judgment
passed
by
Single
Judgepetition arises out against the Order
passed by the Prescribed Authority under
Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act
1936-within the meaning of tribunalentrusted with the Power of Civil Courtheld-appeal barred-not maintainable.

Held: Para 5 and 6

From a conjoint reading of Section 15 (1)
with Section 18 of the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936, it is clear that the authority
empowered to decide claims arising out
of deduction from wages is entrusted all
the powers of Civil Court under the Code
of Civil Procedure for the purposes of
taking evidence and for attendance and
compelling the protection of documents.
Thus the said authority has trapping of
Court and is a tribunal. Any order, thus,
passed by authority under Section 15 of
the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is an
order passed by tribunal. The special
appeal being barred against an order of