HEMLATA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas Vikram Singh as well as Mr. Yash Bharadwaj, learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Mr. Rajnish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Kapil Dev, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the selection of respondent No. 4 i.e. Dr. Renu Mahendra on the post of Principal in State Homeopathic Medical Colleges, Uttar Pradesh. Vide advertisement No. 1/2013 -14 dated 24.08.2013, two posts of Principal in Medical College, Uttar Pradesh were advertised. Out of which one was reserved for female candidate. The petitioner being female had applied against the post advertised for the female candidate. Through the advertisement, the minimum age of the candidate was prescribed as 35 years whereas the maximum age was prescribed as 50 years. It was also provided that in case of exceptionally qualified candidate, the Governor may relax the prescribed age limit in consultation with the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Commission. It has been submitted that the respondent No. 4 was 58 years old at the time of advertisement as is mentioned in the combined seniority list, wherein her date of birth is recorded as 15.05.1956. Thus, it has been submitted that on the date of advertisement, she had become disqualified being overage to apply for the post of Principal. It has further been submitted that no such relaxation as was provided in the advertisement was accorded by the Hon'ble Governor to the respondent No. 4. Moreover her name was also not enlisted in the list of candidates, who were called for interview. The eligibility conditions have to be in conformity to the Uttar Pradesh Homeopathic Medical Colleges Teachers (Service Conditions and Appointment) Rules, 1990, which were not considered at all.

(3.) Mr. I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further contended that earlier the respondent No. 4 had filed a writ petition being writ petition No. 194 (S/B) of 2006 for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the selection of Principal of the Medical College, Uttar Pradesh, which was decided by this Court on 14.09.2010. The operative part of the order is extracted below: