Dismissed

Uttam Saroj v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018WRIA/15228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of appointment as Constable to Scheduled Caste category, having mistakenly applied as OBC Non-Creamy Layer in online form without producing certificate during verification. Court held applicants are bound by online details as per advertisement barring corrections. Writ petition dismissed; appointment refused.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; appointment to Scheduled Caste post refused.

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

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15228 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Uttam Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lokesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable pursuant to the advertisement issued on 29.12.2015. In the online application form, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-1, petitioner described himself as OBC Non Creamylayer. Petitioner, however, asserts that this was due to inadvertent error inasmuch as petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category. It is also submitted that petitioner subsequently made an application for correction in the online application form, which has not been considered. It is also submitted that petitioner has scored marks above the cut-off for OBC category and also for scheduled caste category. Petitioner, therefore, contends that respondents are not justified in denying appointment to the petitioner.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel points out that since petitioner has failed to prove that he is a OBC candidate, therefore, he has rightly been treated in the category of unreserved candidate. The Court is also apprised that more than 22 lacs candidates applied for nearly 33000 posts of Constable. The entire process was online. Petitioner in the online application has clearly described himself as OBC, but at the time of verification he has not produced the OBC certificate, as was required in terms of the advertisement. Clause 6.4 of the advertisement clearly provided that no correction in the details furnished in the online application would be permitted and the candidature of candidates would be considered on the basis of details furnished in the online application.

¶7

In such circumstances, no illegality in the action of the respondents is shown, if respondents have considered candidature of candidates only on the basis of information furnished in the online application form. No relief, therefore, can be granted to the petitioner. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶8

Order Date :- 20.7.2018 Ashok Kr.

Uttam Saroj v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Saroj 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

Surya Bali Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dinesh Chand and 29 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Baljeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others