MRITUNJAY KUMAR NAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has made following relief:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/2021 dtd. 20/2/2021, the petitioner being possessed with matriculation and intermediate mark-sheets/certificates and three Years diploma in Architectural Assistantship, applied for the post of Draughtsman through offline application form. As per the said advertisement, total 43 posts of draughtsman were advertised in following categories: (i) 19 posts for Unreserved category candidates, (ii) 6 posts for Scheduled Caste category candidates, (iii) 3 posts for Scheduled Tribe Category candidates, (iv) 11 posts for Other Backward Class category candidates and (v) 4 posts for Economic Weaker Sec. category candidates. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and was declared successful and his name was placed at serial no. 22 of the result. By means of letter dtd. 20/9/2021, the petitioner was required to appear in the physical efficiency test and primary medical examination which were scheduled to be held between 25/10/2021 to 27/10/2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has received an order dtd. 26/10/2021 at his residence at District Azamgarh wherein it has been mentioned that due to overlapping of Intermediate Examination Mark- sheet/certificate and Diploma Degree of the petitioner, he could not be given placement and selection. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned cannot sustain the scrutiny of law, as there would be no bar in obtaining two degrees in one and same academic session. The order impugned is an ex parte order, as before passing the same, neither the petitioner has been afforded opportunity of hearing nor any show-cause notice has been issued to him. Even otherwise, the petitioner would submit that he undertook admission in the academic session 2013-2014 in Intermediate as a private student, whereas he took admission in undergoing diploma course in Architectural Assistantship in academic-session 2012-2015 as a regular student. The bar in obtaining two degrees in a particular academic session would be restricted only to regular candidates and not private students. The impugned order does not provide any law based upon which an alleged overlapping was stood to be not taken for consideration for conferring appointment. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be dismissed.