CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2017 › Ranajit Kumar Meher v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Ranajit Kumar Meher v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Supreme Court of India · 13 February 2017

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
13 February 2017
Case no.
C.A. No. 2689 of 2017
Bench
Kurian Joseph, A.M. Khanwilkar
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2689 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 20908 OF 2012 ] RANAJIT KUMAR MEHER Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

1. In the affidavit filed on 15.10.2013 by the Joint Director, Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, Government of Odisha, it is stated that the petitioner does not have the qualification prescribed under the Orissa Non-Gazetted Veterinary Technical Services (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, as amended in the year 1997. The whole crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he possesses the qualification as per the advertisement issued on 16.01.2004.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, we are of the view that there cannot be any appointment in violation of the Rules. Qualification is to be seen with respect to the Rules and not the advertisement inviting applications. The appellant,

JUDGMENT

admittedly, does not possess the qualification as prescribed under the Rules.

3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

4. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ A. M. KHANWILKAR ]

New Delhi;
February 13, 2017.

Ask CaseMinister about Ranajit Kumar Meher v. State of Orissa & Ors.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp