E-Paper
UPPSC restrained from fixing interview date
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has restrained the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission from fixing the date of interview for selection of veterinary medical officers under the Animal Husbandry department in the State in pursuance of an advertisement published in Employment News dated September 9.
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has restrained the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission from fixing the date of interview for selection of veterinary medical officers under the Animal Husbandry department in the State in pursuance of an advertisement published in Employment News dated September 9.
Passing this order, a Division Bench comprising Justice Amitava Lala and Justice VC Mishra directed the State government and the Public Service Commission to file reply in this case. The court has fixed November 29 as the next date of hearing.
This order was passed on a writ petition (no-62256 of 2006) filed by one Kapilesh Mohan Varshney of Mathura district.
By means of this advertisement, the UP Public Service Commission had advertised 351 posts of veterinary medical officer as reserved vacancies for Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Castes candidates under UP Veterinary Services, Class II under Special recruitment.
It was alleged in the writ petition that by means of impugned notification, the State government was going to fill up the posts in question which was much in excess to the permissible quota and in violation of Indira Sahney’s case decided by the Apex Court.
Anil Kumar Aditya, advocate, appeared for the petitioner and submitted before the court that Indira Sahney’s case provided that there could be no reservation beyond 50 percent.
However, while passing the order, the court directed the UP Public Service Commission to proceed with scrutiny and other official works.
Arms licences: HC directive to home secy
THE ALLAHABAD High Court directed the home secretary, to personally look into the matter of non-filing of replies (counter-affidavits) in the arms licence matters pending before this court. The court directed the official to seek report from all district magistrates in the State regarding the arms licence matters pending before this court. The DM is the licensing authority under Arms Act.
Passing this order, Justice Rakesh Sharma also directed the secretary to furnish status of the cases mentioning whether replies (counter-affidavits) had been filed in such matters or not. It should also mention whether instructions had been made available to the chief standing counsel or the standing counsels, as the case may be, for conducting government litigations in the Allahabad High Court and its bench at Lucknow.
The court directed that necessary directions be issued to the concerned DMs for ensuring compliance of the court’s order and make necessary arrangements for filing of replies immediately.
The court directed the home secretary to ensure compliance of this order within a month. This order was passed by the court in the writ petition (no- 12702 of 2003) filed by Desh Raj Singh of district Kanpur.
The court directed to list the case in second week of January 2007.
Passing this order, the court observed, “While dealing with such matters relating to suspension and cancellation of arms licence under the provisions of Arms Act, this court has observed that in more than 90 percent cases, counter affidavits have not been filed.
The obvious reason for non-filing of counter affidavit is want of instructions despite serious efforts of state counsels’’.
