Allowed

Anjila Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2018SPLA/966/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a writ dismissal rejecting a candidate due to a gender annotation error. The court held that the commission waived the defect by allowing full participation. Appeal allowed; candidature reinstated if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Appellant permitted to be considered for appointment as Gram Vikas Adhikari and placed in the list of selected incumbents if eligible.

Anjila Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 966 of 2018 Appellant :- Anjila Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Swatantra Kumar Rai

¶2

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha

¶3

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

¶4

Under an Advertisement No.03-Examination-2016 Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission Lucknow invited applications from eligible candidates to participate in Gram Vikas Adhikari (Samanay Chayan) 2016 conducted for recruitment to the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari. The appellantpetitioner in pursuance to the Advertisement aforesaid submitted an application online and she was permitted to participate in entire process of selection. As per averments contained in the petition for writ the appellant-petitioner qualified the examination and had adequate merit marks to be placed in list of selected incumbents but Commission rejected her application form on the count that she erroneously referred her gender as "OBC male" instead of "OBC female". Being aggrieved by decision of the Commission she preferred petition for writ that came to be dismissed under an order dated 30.08.2018 on the count that initial disclosure made in the online application form would not be permitted to be altered by Commission at any stage.

¶5

In appeal argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that appellant-petitioner was permitted to participate in the process of selection and she has obtained adequate merit marks. The purpose of holding a competitive examination is to have been best available hand to public service. The error committed by the appellant-petitioner is quite minor and on that count merit needed for public

¶6

employment should have not been compromised. The error also not adversely affected the process of selection in any manner as such the correction should have been allowed by the respondent-Commission. It is further stated that Commission should have pointed out the wrong if any committed at initial stage and not at the end of process of selection.

¶7

Per contra while meeting with the argument advanced, it is submitted that the Advertisement No.3 for Examination-2016 in quite unambiguous term states that no alteration shall be permitted in the application form after its submission. It is also made clear in the Advertisement itself that no change shall be permissible in the category of candidate, sub category, date of birth, gender etc. After submission of online application form, if any wrong, is committed in giving details about the gender then the application form shall be liable for cancellation. The appellant-petitioner despite having knowledge of the conditions referred in the Advertisement did not remain vigilant to mention correct facts and as such application form was rightly cancelled as per conditions given in the Advertisement.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered rival submissions.

¶9

True it is, the appellant-petitioner should have filled all the facts in the application form with vigilance and diligence and should not have left any error therein. We are also in agreement with the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Commission that as per conditions of the Advertisement, in the event of deficiency the only course available was to cancel the application form of the applicant.

¶10

However, it would be appropriate to state that respondentCommission not only allowed the appellant-petitioner to

¶11

participate in written test but also permitted her to face interview. While undertaking interview, the details given in the application form submitted by the appellant-petitioner must be before the Selection Board. The Selection Board should have very well noticed the issue with regard to gender of the appellant, by her appearance itself. If she was of a different gender then the gender mentioned in the application, the Selection Board should have taken an appropriate decision on that moment itself. In the case in hand the Selection Board instead of taking any appropriate decision on that moment, allowed the appellant-petitioner to face the process of selection and awarded marks to her. This fact is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that error in the application form was waved and was not treated to be so material to reject the candidature.

¶12

In view of whatever stated above, we are of the considered opinion that error occurred in the application form was not treated by the respondents themselves sufficient to cancel the application form of the appellant-petitioner and that was waved. On such waiver it was not open for the respondents to cancel the application form. Accordingly this appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 30.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the appellant-petitioner for appointment as Gram Vikas Adhikari in accordance with law. If she is otherwise eligible, be placed in the list of selected incumbents.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.10.2018

¶14

Asha

¶15

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

Anjila Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjila Pal 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

Sushil Kumar Pathak Vs the Housing Commissioner U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Another

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mahendra Kumar Kasushik and 32 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Hanuman Singh and 85 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Singhasan Chauhan Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Mamta Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others