KANTI SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DILIP Gupta, J. The dispute in this Special Appeal is about the appointment of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner-appellant had admittedly obtained higher quality point marks and had been selected as Shiksha Mitra but the representation filed by a candidate who had worked for longer period as Anudeshak was allowed by the District Magistrate by the order dated 16th October, 2006 solely on the ground that he was entitled to be given preference over the petitioner-appellant. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the issue had been decided by a learned Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 53541 of 2006, Shravan Kumar Yadav v. State of U. P. & Ors. , decided on 26th September, 2006.

(2.) WE have heard Sri N. L. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent No. 4, Sri A. K. Singh for respondent No. 5 and Sri S. K. Anwar for respondent No. 6.

(3.) IN Secretary, A. P. Public Service Commission v. Y. V. V. R. Srinivasulu, (2003) 5 SCC 341, the Supreme Court observed : "the procedure for selection in the case involve, a qualifying test, a written examination and oral test or interview and the final list of selection has to be on the basis of the marks obtained in them. The suitability and all round merit, if had to be adjudged in that manner only what justification could there be for overriding all these merely because, a particular candidate is in possession of an additional qualification on the basis of which, a preference has also been envisaged. The Rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The `preference' envisaged in the Rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere Rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced as a Rule of reservation or Rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only undermine the scheme of selection envisaged through the Public Service Commission, on the basis of merit performance but also would work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority merit- wise and their suitability for the post. It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection. "