VINOD KUMAR MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. MEDICAL EDU. DEPTT. GOVT. OF U.P. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/7710/2025 · 2025-07-17
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 152081 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 152081 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40740 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7710 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Edu. Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamta Prasad Srivastava,Sunil Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Shubham Tripathi Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Saharsh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State, Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Shri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. Under challenge is the advertisement dated 11.06.2025 (wrongly typed in prayer clause as 18.06.2025), a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, for the post of O.T. Assistant. Further, a prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to include the petitioner in the ongoing recruitment process for the pot of O.T. Assistant against the Backlog vacancies arising out of advertisement dated 06.06.2023. 3. Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that the aforesaid controversy has already engaged attention of this Court in Writ A No.6995 of 2025 In Re Arjun Kumar & 10 Ors vs State of U.P. & 4 Ors. Said writ petition was dismissed on 02.07.2025. However, he states that there are two things which have not been considered in the aforesaid judgment on which he would like to argue which are (a) that the interplay between the Regulations 39 & 40 of the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, First Regulations, 2011 and (b) that in the advertisement that has been issued inviting applications from various
institutions for the post of O.T. Assistant to which the instant dispute also pertains to, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition, some other qualification has been indicated for the said post by the AIIMS. 4. No other ground has been urged. 5. Both the grounds are found to be patently fallacious. The reason is not far to seek. 6.
So far as ground (a) i.e. that the interplay between the Regulations 39 & 40 of the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, First Regulations, 2011 is concerned, it is contended that Regulations 39(2) provides for maintaining parity with the AIIMS while Regulation 40 does not provide so and hence the interplay has not been considered by this Court in its earlier judgment. 7. Regulation 40 provides that the governing body may revise qualification and experience for existing posts, and prescribe these in respect of any new posts that may be created. 8. The post of O.T. Assistant is an existing post. Regulations 40 thus gives the power to the governing body to revise qualification and experience for existing posts. Merely because Regulation 40 does not indicate that these qualifications and experience would be at par with the AIIMS as has categorically been provided in Regulation 39 the same cannot take away the power of the the governing body for prescribing the qualification and experience for the existing post, may be drawing parity with qualification and experience, which is applicable with similar post by the AIIMS. 9. Considering the aforesaid, ground (a) is found to be misconceived and is accordingly rejected. 10. So far as ground (b) is concerned, suffice to state that in case an advertisement for the post of O.T. Assistant has been issued inviting
applications for the various posts indicating some other qualification vis a vis qualification which is prevailing in AIIMS New Delhi, the same cannot be considered to be a valid ground for compelling the SGPGI also to issue same advertisement. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to persuade the Court to take a different view from that taken earlier in the case of Arjun Kumar (supra). 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench