Dismissed

Swati Rathaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2019WRIA/15257/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to declare the petitioner successful under Women horizontal reservation. The petitioner had more marks than the last selected Woman candidate but failed to mark 'Women' as her sub-category in the online form. The Court refused equitable intervention, citing the risk of unfairness to other candidates and reliance on Supreme Court precedents regarding

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not declared successful under Women category.

Swati Rathaur Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15257 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Swati Rathaur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Petitioner applied for the posts notified under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2016-17. Petitioner submitted her online form for Group 'C' (Clerical Cadre) post (code 02). Though, she marked her gender 'female' but in the 'sub category' column of the form she was required to disclose that she belonged to the 'women' sub category, but she marked 'none'. Sub category includes Women (w) as one of the category, alongwith, handicapped, freedom fighter etc. but petitioner did not comply the instructions corrrectly. After the final result was declared, petitioner claims that she scored higher marks than the last selected candidate in the subcategory 'Women', therefore, it is urged that she may be declared successful and adjusted under horizontal reservation provided for women..

¶8

Petitioner by the instant writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

¶9

"a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent no. 2 to forthwith include the name of the petitioner as a duly selected candidate under Women Unreserved category in pursuance to U.P. Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2016-17 for the posts of Clerical 'C' Cadre, within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."

¶10

It is not disputed that the last selected candidate under

¶11

'Women' sub category has scored 128 marks, whereas, petitioner has scored 132.02 marks.

¶12

Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel for the respondent on instructions submits that petitioner did not qualified on merit. The cut off marks of the last selected candidate, under the unreserved category to which the petitioner belongs is 136.44 marks. Admittedly, the petitioner did not mark the column 'sub category' in the form, therefore, her candidature for horizontal reservation was not considered. She has been considered under the unreserved category. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Supreme Court rendered in Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and another vs. Neetu Harsh and another, 2019 LawSuit(SC) 1544 , wherein, the question before the Supreme Court primarily was that the private respondent therein had not applied against the vacancy advertised in the physically challenged category but had applied for general category and as per merit list she was not entitled to be appointed as there are more meritorious candidates in the general category and the appointment having been made, the process had been completed. The Court in para 17 and 18 made the following observations:

¶13

"17. .......The very nature of the contention would indicate that in the instant facts the claim in the application under the category should have been made and the disability certificate was required to be produced along with the application since the nature of the disability was a matter which was to be considered by the recruiting authorities concerned, if need be on medical examination......

¶14

18. .......However, in the instant facts when the claim was not made and there are debateable issues, though we could empathise with the cause of the private respondent the nature of direction issued by the High Court in any event cannot be considered as justified. This is more so, in a circumstance where the appellants had acted in terms of the Rajasthan

¶15

Judicial Service Rules, 2010 when no other claim was available and had appointed a candidate from the other category and when such appointment has been made, disturbing such candidate at this juncture also will not be justified......"

¶16

The facts interse parties is not in dispute, petitioner has not been considered under the women category i.e. horizontal reservation though she is having more marks than the candidate adjusted horizontally under the women quota. In an era where applications are invited digitally/online, the candidate has to be very careful while filling up the forms/marking the columns. The applications filled up by the candidates are not examined manually but by the computer based on software programme. In the circumstances, any error committed by a candidate in filling up the form, cannot be allowed to correct at a belated stage after results have been declared and candidates have been selected. In case such corrections are permitted at this stage, then in that event the respondents would have to give an opportunity to all such women candidates, who have wrongly filled the column 'sub category'. It is not the case of the petitioner that the 'sub category' column has been missed by other women candidates.

¶17

Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court declines to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

No cost.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.9.2019 S.Prakash

Swati Rathaur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Rathaur 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalchand Yadav Vs Sharda Devi and 2 Others

Samla Devi Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) Firozabad and Another

Heeramani Vs Additional Civil Judge and 2 Others

Ram Gopal Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Jai Shankar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Gayasi Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others