Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2018SPLA/730/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to a single bench order rejecting his candidature as an OBC candidate for the post of Constable due to a certificate issued in 2014, whereas the specified period was 2015-2016. The Court held that adhering to the timeframe was a mandatory condition.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the appellant's candidature due to non-compliance with the certificate validity period.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 730 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.B. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that whatever lacuna existing in the application format was only a technical and curable. Thus respondents erred by not considering the appellant's candidature in the category of other backward class. On going through entire record, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced. A challenge was given to this by way of filing a petition for writ i.e. A-No.14663 of 2018. The petition for writ came to be dismissed by the judgement impugned dated 12.07.2018. Hence, this appeal is before us.

¶6

The respondents invited online applications from eligible candidates to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police. A condition therein was that if anyone wants consideration of his candidature in the category of OBC, he is required to submit a certificate issued by competent authority between 01.04.2015 to 17.02.2016. The appellant-petitioner submitted a certificate that was issued in the year 2014. Looking to the violation of condition about the period of issuance for other backward class certificate candidature of appellant-petitioner was not treated in the category of OBC.

¶7

Learned Single Bench while examining the entire issue arrived at the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner failed to adhere mandatory condition and, therefore, his candidature was rightly not considered in the category of OBC. Learned Single Bench noticed that the process was online and it was also known to all the applicants that if application is not in the format prescribed then the same shall not be taken note of. As already stated that the certificate of OBC submitted by the appellantpetitioner was not in accordance with the condition prescribed, therefore, it would not have been taken into consideration. The error noticed is not merely a technical error but a mandatory condition for completing process

¶8

of selection online. The appellant should have looked into advertisement carefully and should have adhered the condition prescribed. It would be appropriate to state that online process is accepted looking to huge number of applicants participating in selection process and this huge process demands use of technology to expedite the same. In online process artificial intelligence operates uniformly as per the command given to it. This kind of intelligence is not capable to apply any consideration but to act only and only as per command. While undertaking this process the aspirants must be more vigilant in adhering the conditions given. Any violation of the conditions given can very well bring out an erring person from the process. In the case in hand the petitioner failed to adhere a condition mandatory, thus, the consequence was his rejection only.

¶9

In our considered opinion learned Single Bench did not commit any error while dismissing the petition for writ.

¶10

In view of it, the appeal is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.8.2018

¶12

Asha

¶13

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Bashiyan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Additional Director, Treasury and Pension Vs Uma Shanker Srivastva and 4 Ors.

Kamlesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

sumitra singh Vs state of u.p. and 6 others

vishnu shankar singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Shobha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.