KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition and connected Writ Petition No. 32014 of 1996 are being disposed of by a common judg ment.

(2.) HEARD Mr. L. P. Naithani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) SO far as the petitioner's educational qualification is concerned, now there is no dispute that the petitioner has done his In termediate and hence from the point of view of educational qualification, he is qualified to be appointed as Excise Inspec tor. The question which remains is as to whether Rule 13 (2) (ii) of 1992 Rules is valid.