H2Gaa<;QtJiR:r<E>rGHHAI1^©^ PETNIONER RESPOND2SNT8 wRrr PBirrK»f:w N®.;*>*«rf2!(Nw•': . . • 1 : • Abdul Kabir QuBedn, aged about 50 yesm, S/o Hazi Abdul Ja w Ktiaij, .AsasNttf^GiBj^ -^l; VERSCS. • • • :, .; ,'r:::';"'"" ; t:.:::::"^' ^ : 1. TheDiStrict&Sessu»gJa(^e,Durg; e 2. Shri BoAanJLal St^mala^ %et;euli^';ppaniQted^ as Assistaat Aecountaat, Disbiet &?Se8SRms1 Judgs OSB.ce, Durg, ^.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSaTTUTICW OF INDIA SB: HMi*bIc SIitf ^ttsb K. AenBioftl.J. . Presait: ShriManeeshl-^iadfaya^Adyot^efia-theyetitiQnw. y ::,..- •..^•.•Mk 1. l<meF 2. '^•x' 3. ^ft; (Pass^(wQ^^<»f.fanUary,2 Leamed CQiMtael:iq)pea*m®s&MKAeipetfti<» iSuh is wo!ikmg^as^dtelstaiAGraie iB^^ Swsions Judge, Durg. 'nis^petitioner is senior to respondfflit No. 2 ai^ fhft eriteria fm promotion is seniority ciun nierit. ^ It is fitrttier urged that •Qie case oftiie petitioaer has been cotwideredby- the Departoieatat pFMaofeni ComnMttBe fin- promdtKm 1ioti»!:p&A><of I.W-t,-^-,^..».t Assistant Accoiutfant, butlhepetitionerwM notfeiudWflarilM'waottia. It is ned:eontended tljat ti^e is ao advwse en&y in 4te?^Fvice a»eQR offliepetittoneraadassudi,'ttereis tio t'easonto'igioi'e Ae petitMMW and not promoteNni tothe post ofAssistMrt Aceouatant; ^ The eriteria of seniority cum meritas adndtted by tte l^uaed couasel fm the prtttioner has been foUov^bythe^urthGffitetes.ftiswelt^ established that in case 6f semority eiua merit, fte s^iarity hastofee considered fer preparing zone ofeonsidei'attmt uttiniately, pnmiotion is to be ma& OH Ae basis ol the Departmental Pnmitrtion Gonmrittee fi» petifianer has been eoasidered fw prai^titMi, 'tiie Aeeisi<Mi <tf41» '-'•' '^::" 4. Ia tfie mafter of OsBaaaia Univa'sity reyeseated by jts Hyderabad, A.P. Vs. AfciArf Rayees Khai&anotUw^" held tfaat geaerally the Court aay not interfece witft the !*?"''!'"""'! ^'?i!!im^-l!LILW°-''i?E: 6. 7. 8. relaling to edueatiunal afifaits, aad acaaenuc aiattera may be tofl to tte expert bodyto seleet bert oflbetdent on objeatiw (alteria. Furifaer, in flie waStw of DPSC Vs. E.Bajiah aad <Aers, the Sigwsoe Court obsaved fliat Ifae Gourt should aot <n'&>arily-int«SM»la,a selection iwoeess conducted by aa esyert body. la one of dte latot deeisims ofltoe Sup«ni»Court, m the tBBtter of Union Pubfic Service Comnrission Vs. LP.Tiwari aid bttes, ft was heldasunder: ^^.^-K- "ItisnowmoTeorlessweUsettiedlfaatfheevaluationBaade ; by an e^ert eommittoe sdiould not beeasilyiaterfet'edwatit;^ by the Courte wirieh do notliave the aecessaiyeatpei'ttse to , undertafce Ifae exCTeise fliat is aecessaiy fiw suA puqx^." y The argument aTtto leamed eounsd ferthe petitione Aat<here was ao adverse ei^ m fhfi servfoe reeerd is^^^i^ luttess it is' estaMished Aattte respoadeirtNo. 2, wfao has beai pFomcte^sBfjferad some advCTse entry. This is not die case efliw petitfoinK- SItecsMe^of •Qie pettionCT ffl solely ontte g-ouBdlhat •fl»petitioaOT was not feiu^ fit 1>y Ifae J)epartm tat petitipnw h8sjttts^raSly,l^lea^^ intet-fermce (rf'iBjis Court. r s ' fa viewofttiad,thare iswyaerit disnrissed. Nb or^r asto eosts. casp. "Ilwpetitioais SdA Satish K. Agaihotri Judge i. u»T(3iseciw 2. 2iiBi{ij))SeCU 3. 201B(U)SCC»17