bhaiyon cs me scoring topics kaun kaun se hain.....
Anybody here from civil engineering
Preparing whole syllabus or 8 given subjects
- whole
- 8 subjects
0 voters
Does anyone still have problems in downloading admit card?
In my case pdf fomat of admit card is invalid so am not able to dwnld it. Kisi aur k sath ye prob hai???
anyone having cntr at varanasi?
Is bar ap tech is organizing CBT exam.
Non technical ki Taiyari kse ki h..kya kya pdha h
Hhhh
What was the cutoff for CSE previous year?
If anyone have previous yr papers or sample paper , please kindly share it here.
Thanks in advance ☺
Which Objective book do u think is best for electrical and electronics eng. ??
- Mittal
- JB gupta
- Any other (mention the name)
0 voters
MEERUT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYNH58,BYEPASSROAD, BARAL PARTAPUR, MEERUT ..kisi ka center hai???..koi delhi se jane wala hai kya?
MORNING SHIFT ME....9 BAJE WALE ME
Koi uppcl JE wala hai kya?
MEERUT INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY N.H. 58, DELHIROORKEE HIGHWAY, BAGHPAT ROAD BYPASS CROSSING, MEERUT UP
12 nov 2pm kisi ka ae electrical ka paper h
Jo DELHI se jayega
bhai log who is conducting the online exam ? tcs ?
is anyone outside up is selected in uppcl ae ece?
JAGO ENGINEER JAGO ..... SEE THE DIPLOMA ESSENTIAL POST BTECH APPLY AND SELECTED 2010 eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System (Judgment/Order in Text Format) This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No.38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.671 of 2009
Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition the petitioner is praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.12.2008 by which his candidature for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) vide advertisement No.6/3 for the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) (backlog) in the Public Works Department, U.P. has been rejected on the ground that he holds graduate degree in engineering.
The petitioner is graduate in engineering with Bachelor of Engineering from University of Pune in the year 1994. He applied for selections for Junior Engineer in the recruitment of the year 1998 for 544 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil/Backlog). The result was declared on 7.1.2000. The U.P. Public Service Commissioner sent recommendation to the U.P. Government on 30.10.2000, which forwarded the recommendation on 31.10.2000 to the Chief Engineer's Office at Almora. A separate State of Uttaranchal came into existence on 9.11.2000. The recommendation of U.P. Government to the Government of Uttaranchal was not accepted by the Government of Uttaranchal on the ground that new reservation policy of the State of Uttaranchal is different and that there are practical and legal difficulties in giving appointment to the candidates recommended by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The matter went up to the Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal & Ors. Vs. Siddarth Srivastava & Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 336. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the High Court dismissing the writ petition was not correct and gave directions in para 31 as follows:-
"31. It was also urged in the alternative that the State of Uttar Pradesh may be directed to give appointments to the non-official respondents. This aspect was neither raised before the High Court nor it was considered. Hence, we do not wish to deal with the same. All that we can say is that this order shall not come in the way of the State of Uttar Pradesh, if so advised, to consider the claims of the non-official respondents for appointments based on the selection made by UPPSC. Having regard to the peculiar situation in which the non-official respondents are placed, we would like to say that in case the non-official respondents apply as and when the applications are invited for selection either by UPPSC or by the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission in future within a period of three years, the UPPSC or the Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission shall consider them for selection subject to their satisfying all other eligibility requirements but relaxing the upper age-limit."
The candidates, whose names were included in the select list dated 7.1.2000 including the petitioner approached the State of U.P. for appointment. The writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge. The State of U.P. filed a letter patent appeal, which was dismissed. The State of U.P. then filed Civil Appeal No.1433 of 2006, which was allowed after reiterating the law, that the selections do not give right to appointment. The Supreme Court found that the High Court after having correctly indicated the legal position failed to apply the same to the factual scenario. Since all the posts advertised for plain cadre were filled, the stand of the State that there was no scope for appointment was accepted. The Supreme Court directed that the relaxation be given for a period of three years for appointment, when the applications are invited for selections by the U.P. Public Service Commission or Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission. The relaxation was to be granted, when fresh applications were invited. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals on March 3rd, 2006.
Now the post of Junior Engineers have again been advertised vide advertisement dated 29.12.2007. By the communication dated 04.12.2008 of the U.P. Public Service Commission, the petitioner has now been found ineligible to apply for the post on the ground that a degree holder is not eligible for the post.
Shri Vivek Mathur, learned counsel for the Public Works Department has relied upon the Single Judge judgment of this Court dated 5.7.2005 in Writ Petition No.7012 (S/S) of 2001, Anoop Ratan Awasthi Vs. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Ors. connected with Writ Petition No.7062 (S/S) of 2001 in which the rejection of the candidature of graduate engineers on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), Irrigation was upheld on the ground that in Rule 8A of the U.P. Irrigation Department Civil Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 the essential qualification is diploma in engineering. Learned Judge gave following reasoning to dismiss the writ petition:-
(1)The qualification prescribed in the rules is diploma in engineering, which is not a minimum qualification but a required qualification;
(2)In K. Kappasami & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 1998 (8) ESC 459 it was held that the statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the Rule, does not mean that the Rules stood obliterated. Till the Rule is amended, the Rule applies.
(3)In Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 548 it was held that recruitment to public services shall be held strictly in accordance with the tenure of advertisement and recruitment rules if any and that no deviation is permitted to deprive many others, who would have competed for the post.
(4)The argument that the junior engineers acquiring degrees during the service are given special quota in promotions is applicable to those engineers, who have obtained another degree and not by those, who were graduate engineer, when they appeared in the selections.
I am unable to agree with the reasoning given by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Mehrotra in deciding Anoop Ratan Awasthi's case. In my opinion, which is supported by the reasons given below, the petitioner both on the ground that his candidature was not rejected in the selections held in the year 1998 for the post of Junior Engineer and further on the ground that a degree holder having higher qualification than diploma holder cannot be held to be ineligible for the post under Rule 8A of the U.P. Irrigation Department Civil Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 should have been allowed to appear in the interviews. The reasons on which I disagree with the judgment in Anoop Ratan Awasthi's case are given as below:-
"(1) The petitioner as a graduate engineer with B.E. in Civil Engineering from University of Pune (1994) had earlier applied for the post of Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation Department in pursuance to the Advertisement No.3 of 1998-99. He was selected for appointment and was allotted hill cadre, which later fell in the State of Uttaranchal. The U.P. Public Service Commission or the State Government did not reject his candidature on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualifications. The Supreme Court has vide judgment in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Siddharth Srivastava & Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 336 and the judgment in the State of U.P. Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1433 of 2006, dated March 3rd, 2006 directed that since all the post in the plain cadre has been filled up, there was no scope for appointment of non-official respondents. The relaxation was given for a period of three yeas for applicants, when applications were invited for selection by UPPSC or Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission. The relaxation is to be granted, when fresh applications are invited. The U.P. Public Service Commission and the State of U.P. are therefore stopped on the principles of constructive resjudicata to question the qualifications of the petitioner to appear in the subject selections. The question whether the petitioner holds minimum qualification or required qualification was neither raised nor considered and thus the UPPSC and the State Government cannot be permitted to raise the plea again and to reject the candidature of the petitioner.
(2) A graduate degree in Civil Engineering is a higher qualification possessed by candidate for the post than the qualification prescribed under the rules. A candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be discriminated and held ineligible, on the ground that he does not possess required qualifications.
(3) In T.R. Katha N. Daraman Vs. Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, (1994) 8 SCC 282 it was held that a harmony has to be struck in maintaining reasonableness in the ratio between the call of the social justice and the need of higher education, without in any way jeopardising the principal object of qualification. The reasonableness of the ratio will depend upon the facts of each case. In this case the graduate engineer is not claiming any benefit, weightage or preference in appointment to the post of Junior Engineers. They are claiming to be eligible as they hold higher qualification in the subject, which is being treated as required qualification.
(4) In Union of India Vs. D. Sundera Rama, (1997) 4 SCC 664 the Supreme Court upheld the shortlisting of the candidates possessing higher qualification. It was held that prescribed essential qualification is minimum qualification and that mere possession of minimum qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview.
(5) A large number of State and private engineering colleges are turning out thousands of graduate engineers. They are finding it difficult to get jobs. The Courts have to balance their rights to be qualified for the jobs for which a lower qualification is the essential qualification. It would not serve public interest to allow graduate engineers to remain unemployed and to offer jobs of Junior Engineer to diploma holders.
(6) There has been a gradual fall of standards in education and quality of work performed by Junior Engineers. With the availability of large number of graduate engineers the department may find persons with higher qualifications, more competent and suitable for the post of Junior Engineers. It is admitted that the job of Junior Engineers can be performed by degree holders and that it is not necessary that only a diploma holder is suitable for the job."
In view of the difference of opinion expressed on the reasons given as above, the matter is referred to the larger Bench. The papers shall be placed by the office before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to nominate a larger bench to decide the matter.
The petitioner was earlier selected to the services of Junior Engineer in Public Works Department and that under the orders of the Supreme Court age relaxation was given to all such candidates, which has now been availed by the petitioner. His candidature, therefore, could not be rejected on a new ground that he is a graduate engineer. An interim mandamus is as such issued to the respondents to allow all those graduate engineers, who hold graduate degrees and have applied for selections on the vacancies on the post of Junior Engineers, to permit them to appear in the interviews. Their results shall also be declared. However, (in case they are selected), their selections shall be subject to result of the writ petition.
Dt.12.01.2009
SP/
Visithttp://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.dofor more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow. Disclaimer
APPLY UJVN JE ALL DIPLOMA ESSENTIAL JOB HAVING BTECH SEE ALSO 2014 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISSION.
Main Search Premium MembersTry out the Virtual Legal Assistant to build your case briefs as you use the website and to professionally manage your legal research. Become a Premium Member and enjoy ad-free experience. Free for three months and pay only if you like it.User Queriesb.eddegree or diplomadsssbpossessing higher qualificationsintegrated courseshindiCentral Administrative Tribunal - DelhiMonika Sharma vs Chief Secretary on 13 February, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
O.A. No.3870/2012
Orders reserved on: 21.11.2013.
Pronounced on: 13.02.2014
Honble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
Monika Sharma,
W/o Sh. Vineet Kumar Sharma,
R/o D-281, Ganga Vihar,
Near Gokal Puri,
Delhi-110094.
-Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors through:
1. Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma Complex,
Delhi.
3. Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi,
Through its Director.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Renu George)
O R D E R
Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A):The applicant had applied for the post of PGT (Sociology) [post code no.49/10] in response to an advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2010. The respondent no.2 declared the result of the selection process on 13.07.2012 in which the applicant has been shown as provisionally selected. Subsequently, respondent no.3 issued a letter on 19.12.2012, which is reproduced below:It is to bring to your kind notice that memorandum was issued to Mrs. Monika Sharma, PGT/Lecturer (Sociology) vide letter No.DE.2(8)(159)/ E-II/2012-13/6673 dated 23-8-12 with the direction to appear in person in this office on 10-09-2012 along with the documents pertaining to educational qualification required to be verified with her dossier received from DSSSB vide letter No.F/1(94)/DSSSB/ P&P/08/4644 dated 31.07.2012 in this office.During verification of Educational documents Mrs. Monika Sharma failed to produce the degree of B. Ed. examination as she did not possess the said degree. As per the recruitment rules for the appointment of PGT, the degree of B. Ed. is essential for the said post.Keeping in view of above, the dossier of Mrs. Monika Sharma is being returned to you in original.This issues with the prior approval of the competent authority.2. According to the applicant she fulfills all the eligibility conditions, as prescribed in the recruitment rules and notified in the advertisement no.02/10, which is as follows:Essential Qualifications: for PGT (excluding Engineering Drawing/Music/Home Science)1. Masters Degree (or its equivalent Oriental Degree in the case of PGT Sanskrit/Hindi) in the subject concerned from any recognized University.2. Degree/Diploma in Training/Education Qualifications mentioned at S.No.2 above relaxable in case of candidates:having obtained Ph. Degree in the subject concerned from a recognized University/ Institution; or having obtained First Division in Higher Secondary. Degree and Post Graduate Examination with the mandatory condition that the candidate will acquire the B. Ed./B.T. qualification within a period not exceeding three years from the date of his joining the service.3. Desirable: 3 years, experience of teaching in a College/Higher Secondary School/High School in the subject concerned. The applicant had obtained the degree of Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.) in 2004 from Delhi University. Thereafter, she did her Master of Education in 2005 and MA in Sociology in 2009. It is the contention of the applicant that the degree of B. El. Ed is considered to be equivalent to B. Ed. by the Delhi University and that is how she was admitted in the M. Ed. course. The applicant had brought this position to the notice of the respondents but they have not considered her arguments. Therefore the applicant had to file this OA. This Tribunal in its order dated 22.11.2012 has directed that the respondents shall not fill up one post of PGT (Sociology).3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the advertisement issued by the respondents among the essential qualifications the requirement is Degree/ Diploma in Training/Education. It does not specifically state that the applicant must possess B. Ed. degree. The respondents have, therefore, acted arbitrarily in rejecting the candidature of the applicant. The respondent no.2 after examining the eligibility conditions as per the recruitment rules had recommended the name of the applicant for appointment. Once the expert body like the DSSSB had examined this matter, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent no.3 to re-examine the matter and reject the candidature of the applicant. It was further argued that B. El. Ed was nothing but an integrated course of normal graduation and a degree in graduation on the lines of integrated course of BA+LLB of 05 years duration. The university considers this degree eligible for admission to M. Ed. The learned counsel further submitted that it has been by now established through various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble High Courts that a person possessing a higher degree in a subject will be considered as eligible for a post where a lower degree in that subject has been prescribed in the recruitment rules. In this respect the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Honble High Court in Mrs. Manju Pal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2002 (61) DRJ 58, where it was held that BA with Hindi cannot be said lesser qualification than higher secondary with Hindi, nor is there any nexus in laying down the qualification, hence it was ultra vires.4. The learned counsel also quoted from News Report dated 27.09.2012 stating that Honble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir had ruled that a person with higher qualification in any discipline was eligible for competing for the post where a minimum qualification is provided as a requisite qualification. However, a copy of the judgment or citation was not provided. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1520/2012 and batch in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Sachin Gupta etc. etc., decided on 07.08.2013 and a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Public Service Commission, JT 2002 Suppl 1 SC 85.5. Learned counsel for the respondents contested the submissions made by the applicant in the OA as well as the arguments put-forward by the learned counsel for the applicant stating that the respondents have to adhere to the educational qualifications, as prescribed in the recruitment rules. There was a clear requirement stipulated in the recruitment rules that the candidates should possess degree/diploma in training/education and, therefore, there was no ambiguity in its interpretation. A degree in education would mean Bachelor of Education, i.e., B. Ed. and not B. El. Ed. The learned counsel also referred to the result notice and stated that the notice had clearly mentioned that this selection was subject to fulfillment of all eligibility conditions as prescribed in the statutory RRs and terms and conditions of advertisement as indicated in the advertisement inviting applications and also subject to thorough verification of the identity. Therefore, on the basis of provisional recommendation of DSSSB, the applicant cannot apply the principle of estoppel. It was also submitted that the ultimate authority to determine the eligibility conditions was the requisitioning department and not the recruiting agency. It was also argued that possessing B. Ed. degree was an essential requirement, which can also be inferred from the relaxation given to certain candidates in the recruitment rules, as mentioned in the advertisement. Even for those candidates in whose cases condition of B. Ed. degree was relaxed, it is a mandatory condition that the candidate will acquire the B. Ed./B.T. qualification within a period not exceeding three years from the date of his joining the service. Thus a candidate not possessing B. Ed. degree cannot be considered as fulfilling the statutory eligibility condition prescribed in the recruitment rules.6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival sides. We find that neither side has gone into the question of equivalence of B. El. Ed. degree by comparing the subjects or the syllabus. The applicant has averred that B. El. Ed. is an integrated course of BA and B. Ed. compressed in 04 years, which has not been taken into consideration by the respondents. If that is so, the B. El. Ed. can be considered as BA+B. Ed. However, without pressing this point further, we observe that the applicant possesses Post Graduate degree of M. Ed. The question therefore is whether after possessing the degree of M. Ed. can a candidate be disqualified for not possessing the degree of B. Ed., which is a condition mentioned in the recruitment rules? This question has been dealt with by the Honble High Court in several cases. In Sachin Gupta etc. etc. (supra) the Honble High Court has dealt with, among others, the case of one Neelam Rana, who was seeking appointment as TGT (English), a subject which she never studied in her graduation course (she studied B. Sc. Botany) but she fought the battle on the strength of having Post Graduate Degree, i.e., M.A. (English). The Honble High Court allowed the Writ, relying on the decision of the Honble High Court in Manju Pal (supra). In Jyoti K.K. (supra) the appellants were holders of B. Tech and B.E. Degree in Electrical Engineering and had applied for the post of Sub Engineer (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board advertised by Kerala Public Service Commission. The recruitment rules required the candidate to possess a diploma in Electrical Engineer (03 years course) or a certificate in Electrical Engineer with 05 years service under the Kerala State Electricity Board or MGTE/KGTE in Electrical Light and Power (Higher) with 05 years experience as II Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Board. The appellants were considered ineligible as they possess higher qualifications and did not possess exactly the qualification prescribed in the recruitment rules. In this case the Honble Supreme Court observed:.If a person has acquired higher qualification in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post.. It further observed:.In the event the government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied to post of sub-engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, wither this rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same faculty, it becomes clear that the rule should be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above.7. Considering the facts of this case and the law, as laid down in the above verdict of the Honble Courts, we allow this OA. The impugned letter dated 19.10.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant as fulfilling the eligibility condition of having Degree/Diploma in Training/Education and to process her case further for appointment to the post of PGT (Sociology). This shall be done within 06 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order stands vacated. No costs.
(V.N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J)
San.
if anyone have previous year papers of UPPCL AE Electrical engg. please send me on my email id: [email protected].
thanx in advance
Thermionic emission occurs in (A) Transistors (B) Ferrite cores (C) Copper conductors (D) Semi-conductors