Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 946 (ALL)

Ram Sanehi v. State Of U. P.

2020-06-11

GOVIND MATHUR, RAMESH SINHA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.P. Awasthi, learned counsel for respondents no.4 to 28 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 28th February, 2020 passed by learned single Bench in Writ-A No.4178 of 2003. 3. Learned single Bench by the judgment impugned while dismissing the petition for writ arrived at the conclusion that there was no illegality in the process of selection conducted by the respondents for recruitment of Class-IV employees. The Court also held that the process of selection that acquired finality 17 years earlier cannot now be undone. 4. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that learned single Bench failed to appreciate that the entire process of selection had smack of extraneous considerations and malafides and to substantiate the same he has cited the contents of para 9 and 11 of the writ petition. 5. In the paras aforesaid some reference has been given about relation of some of the members of the Selection Committee but those in no manner points out any illegality or even irregularity in the process of selection. 6. So far as the argument advanced with regard to holding interview of more than 900 persons in a day is concerned, suffice to state that the selections in question pertains to the lowest post in the hierarchy of service and for such post "Class-IV" the main requirement is only to ascertain minimum eligibility by examining the testimonials. 7. It is well settled that for such a post the personality does not plays any vital role and that may warrant extensive interview. 8. While placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, 1981 (1) SCC 722 , it is submitted that to interview 900 persons in a day is humanly impossible and that reflects mechanical exercise of powers. 9. As already stated, in the case in hand the process of selection was pertaining to the post of Class-IV employees and for that main criteria is to ascertain minimum eligibility to hold the post. The personality for such a post is not of much importance. 10. 9. As already stated, in the case in hand the process of selection was pertaining to the post of Class-IV employees and for that main criteria is to ascertain minimum eligibility to hold the post. The personality for such a post is not of much importance. 10. True it is, there was one Selection Committee but the Selection Committee must have availed assistance of ministerial staff to verify testimonials of the candidates. 11. In the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) the issue of interview was entirely in different pretext and that cannot be made applicable in the instant matter. 12. In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. 13. The special appeal is dismissed accordingly.