Single-judge court dismissed a writ petition by a petitioner who filed after the extended deadline for a recruitment advertisement. The court held that the law is settled that cutoff dates cannot be extended and relied on a prior order dismissing a similar suit for approaching late.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13968 of 2018 Petitioner :- Omvir Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kundan Kumar,Rakhi Kumari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shubham Agarwal, holding brief of Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Advertisement No.A-1E1-2018 dated 15.03.2018, insofar it fixes 1st July,2018, as cut of date for the maximum age of eligible candidate with respect to 9342 vacancies which had been advertised earlier and which had been re-advertised alongwith vacancies in the subsequent years by the impugned advertisement.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process initiated for appointment 9342 vacancies advertisement vide notice/Office order dated 19.12.2016 and re-advertised vide Advertisement No.A-1/E-1-2018 dated 15.03.2018 by treating 01.07.2016 as the cut off date for determining of maximum age limit of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Service Rules, 1983 as amended till date.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to restrain the such candidates for appointment against the 9342 vacancies advertised vide notice/office order dated 19.12.2016."
The last date for submission of application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.3.2018 was 16.4.2018. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ A No.9688 of 2018, dated 11.4.2018, the respondent no.4 extended the date upto 14.6.2018 for registration and filling up form so as to accommodate certain petitioners in whose favour interim orders were passed. This writ petition has been filed even after the extended date. In Writ - A No.14140 of 2018 decided on 26.6.2018, this Court dismissed similar writ petition observing as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Awanish Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 - U.P. Public Service Commission.
Learned counsel for the respondent - U.P. Public Service Commission submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is identical to one as in Writ A no. 14124 of 2018, Richa Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, which has been decided by judgment and order dated 25.6.2018, which is quoted as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel for U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and learned standing counsel for respondent no.1.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are also entitled for the same relief as granted by this Court in Writ-A No.9614 of 2018, Divya Prakash Mishra and 32 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others and Writ-A No.13597 of 2018 Vijay Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, whereby as an interim measure. It was provided that the petitioners were permitted to apply for the post in question and their claim would not be non-suited merely for the reason that they have become overage and their candidature, however, shall be subject to outcome of the present writ petition.
In the present case, as per the advertisement dated 15.3.2018, the last date of submission of the form was 16.4.2018. Learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission fairly submitted that the last date was extended to 14.6.2018 in order to accommodate the candidates covered by the interim orders passed by this Court. Now that date has expired.
Law is settled that cut off date or the last date of submission of forms cannot be extended by this Court. The advertisement is dated 15.3.2018. The initial last date of submission of form was 16.4.2018 and extended last date was 14.6.2018. Interim orders in the above noted petitions were passed within the initial last date/extended last date. Under such circumstances, undisputedly, the petitioners have approached this Court after expiry of last date of submission of the forms.
In view of the settled law, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed."Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the same.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs."
Respectfully following the aforequoted order, this writ petition is also dismissed .
Order Date :- 5.7.2018/vkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether relief can be granted when a writ petition is filed after the expiry of the last date for form submission extended in interim orders.
Whether an earlier order dismissing a similar writ petition on laches and procedural default can be respectfully followed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ - A No.14140 of 2018Followed¶9
Richa SinghReferred¶11
Writ A no. 14124 of 2018, Richa Singh and another Vs. State of U.P.
Divya Prakash MishraReferred¶13
Writ-A No.9614 of 2018, Divya Prakash Mishra and 32 others vs. State of U.P.
Vijay KumarReferred¶13
Writ-A No.13597 of 2018, Vijay Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P.
Omvir Singh
State Of U P
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
