SANTWANA DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H.G.S. Parihar has very fairly stated that there is no arbitrariness in the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983 and in particular Regulation 6, which permits the screening of the candidates, who had applied for selection to a particular post of teacher on the basis of the academic qualifications but says that non calling of the petitioner for interview is hit by the Government Order dated 23/12/2003 issued by the State Government and, therefore, the action of the Commission is bad in law.

(2.) It cannot be disputed that in a selection where a large number of forms are received from prospective candidates possessing minimum or essential prescribed qualification, the selecting body has a right to screen out the candidates, or in other words, to short list the candidates for consideration. The only requirement, while doing so, is that the criteria adopted must be reasonable and uniform and it should not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or malafide.

(3.) Regulation 6 aforesaid, gives a right to the Commission to screen out or short list the candidates on any criteria, which is reasonable, on the basis of the academic record. The Commission had allocated quality point marks towards the academic achievement and since the petitioner could not fall within the prescribed minimum marks, she has not been called for interview.