In a writ petition challenging a selection process failure, the petitioner claimed erroneous recording of participation in a Physical Efficiency Test. The court dismissed the petition mandamus plea, holding the candidate did not meet the minimum criteria.
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. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22937 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ravindra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mir Sayed Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Mir Sayed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S. Kushwaha, the learned counsel, who has appeared for the Commission.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following relief:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the application dated 21.01.2017 within stipulated period and direct to respondents to include the marks of the physical test of the petitioner dated 20 October 2016."
It appears that the petitioner had appeared in a selection process initiated by the Commission for filling up the post of Village Development Officer in 2016. Although the petitioner participated in the selection process, he was not shown as successful. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially drew the attention of the Court to page 32 of the paper book to contend that the petitioner was shown as absent in the Physical Efficiency Examination even though he had appeared and participated in the same. He has further referred to the disclosures made by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 31 January 2017, in which it was
stated that he had in fact obtained 10 marks in the Physical Efficiency Examination. According to the learned counsel it was on account of the petitioner having been shown as absent that the Commission did not take into consideration the 10 marks obtained by him in the Physical Efficiency Examination rendering him ineligible.
This Court finds it unnecessary to go into this controversy in light of the submission advanced by Sri Kushwaha, the counsel for the Commission, who has drawn the attention of the Court to Clause 13 of the Advertisement in which it is clearly prescribed that a candidate must obtain a minimum of 15 marks in the Physical Efficiency Examination. Undisputedly, the petitioner obtained only 10 marks in the Physical Efficiency Examination. Consequently, this Court finds itself unable to grant any relief to the petitioner.
The writ petition is consequently dismissed .
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Arun K. Singh
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to direct the Commission to include his 10 marks in the Physical Efficiency Examination despite the minimum requirement being 15 marks.
Ravindra Yadav
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
