Allowed

Neelam Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018WRIA/17740/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment as a Constable alleging denial of OBC benefits. Court found her marks exceeded category cut-off and certified her certificate was valid per precedent. Ordered authorities to consider her claim with reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Directions to accord consideration to the petitioner's claim for appointment by passing a reasoned order within two months.

Neelam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17740 of 2018 Petitioner :- Neelam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dadhi Bal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶3

Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable (Female) in U.P. Police pursuant to the recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2015. Petitioner belongs to OBC category. Petitioner has scored 414.30 marks in the selection, which is above the cut off in the respective category. Her grievance is that though cut off marks in the respective category is 410.6, but petitioner has not been selected without assigning any reason. Since petitioner has been denied benefit of OBC category and has, otherwise, not scored above 418.77 marks meant for unreserved category, as such, she has not been selected.

¶4

Perusal of the records would go to show that petitioner has a valid caste certificate issued by the competent authority dated 02.02.2016, which is in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, as also in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (FB) 2017 (5) ADJ 494.

¶5

Contention of the learned standing counsel, that the petitioner has not been considered because she has not produced the OBC certificate, is not liable to be accepted; in as much as, such certificate has been duly filled in the online application form and has also been brought on record before this Court.

¶6

The argument on behalf of the petitioner, that due to large number of applicants, the respondents may have erred in failing to take note of the OBC certificate of the petitioner, appears to have substance.

¶7

This Court finds that petitioner has scored marks above the cut off in the respective category and her OBC certificate is also of a date as is made permissible in Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (FB) 2017 (5) ADJ 494. In such circumstances, petitioner's claim for appointment was liable to have been considered.

¶8

This petition, accordingly, stands disposed of with a direction upon the authority concerned to accord consideration to the petitioner's claim for appointment by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶9

Order Date :- 29.8.2018/Amit Mishra

Neelam Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hoshiyar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sovaran Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saroj Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praval Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Bharose Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahkar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others