Dismissed

Kaushlesh Upadhyay v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2019WRIC/7079/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought to correct an error in his online category category for a commercial entrepreneurship application. Citing User Manual conditions and prior precedents, the court declined to permit alteration, emphasizing personal responsibility and administrative stability.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed.

Kaushlesh Upadhyay Vs Union of India and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7079 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Kaushlesh Upadhyay Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vikas Budhwar

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vikas Budhwar, Advocate for respondents.

¶7

Admittedly, petitioner has committed error in filing Online Application Form and has wrongly filled in his category as no.2. Petitioner had to apply in category 1. It is on account of this reason that application has been registered in group 2.

¶8

It is admitted that there is a condition prescribed in User Manual, for those who are supposed to submit Online Application Forms that once application is submitted thereafter no correction shall be permitted.

¶9

This Court has repeatedly held that when a condition is prescribed form for the candidates filling in an application form that no subsequent correction, alteration or modification would be permitted once application is submitted, contrary to such condition, Court will not permit any correction, alteration or modification of such application.

¶10

A similar issue came up before this Court in Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013 (Ram Manohar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others) , decided on 30.05.2013 wherein Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J., said as under:

¶11

“If prospective teacher can not even correctly fill up the simple on line application form for his employment, it is obvious what he is going to teach if appointed. There are certain decisions cited on this issue. But none of them deal with this aspect whether under

¶12

¶13

the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India such incompetent persons should be allowed to play with the future of the next generation.”

¶14

Again in the context of Online Application, question of subsequent correction, permissible or not, came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 123 of 2014 (Smt. Arti Verma vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 05.02.2014 and Court said:

¶15

“The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly . No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction …..”

¶16

In the present case Online Applications are required to be submitted for a commercial entrepreneurship and therein, those, who are competent enough, should be allowed to proceed. Moreover, it is difficult to understand that filling of application in different category is deliberate or indeliberate inasmuch as there can be an occasion for a person to take a chance in one category and thereafter to turn back to claim his consideration in another category and so on.

¶17

In any case, when a particular date is prescribed by which corrected application form is to be submitted, in our view, it would not be appropriate to allow any alteration, modification or change in the application form subsequently as that will not only amount to permit a person to submit corrected application form after expiry of due date but may also result in administrative disturbance of processing of forms and further steps for which advertisement has been issued and applications have been invited.

¶18

¶19

In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not expected to pass whimsical orders not founded on any logic but dependent on individual discretion and wisdom. When instructions issued by authority inviting applications are very clear, there is no reason to create disturbance in the scheme of such instructions, by passing orders on judicial side on the basis of consideration of facts in individual cases.

¶20

In the result, we find no merit in writ petition. Dismissed accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 01.03.2019 AK

Kaushlesh Upadhyay v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushlesh Upadhyay v. Union of India and 2 Others

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

Sarva Daman Pundir Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others

M/S v. Tel Power and Communication and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Abdul Wahab Vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 3 Others

Rajpal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Indira Rice Mill and 7 others Vs Deputy General Manager Distribution and 4 Others