Petitioner sought verification appointment and correction of graduation marks on recruitment application. Relying on Pawan Kumar case, Court held requesting corrections at recruitment stage impermissible and disposed of petition on similar terms allowing State to evaluate.
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. - 81
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10017 of 2020
Petitioner :- Arti Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Vikram Yadav,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Kant Verma
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.4 to permit the petitioner for documents verification and appoint him on the post of Assistant Teacher.
(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to permit the petitioner to correct marks of graduation on the online application form submitted by petitioner on the post of Assistant teacher."
The corrections which are sought to be made, are in respect of the online application form submitted for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2019. Dealing with that issue, this Court in Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ-A No. 11079 of 2020 decided on 14.12.2020]
held thus:-
"On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid discussion the Court comes to the following conclusions. A permission to rectify and amend entries made in the online applications would be clearly impermissible in light of the caveats carried in the advertisements and notices issued by the respondents as well as the declarations made by the candidates themselves while participating in the recruitment process. It would not only be iniquitous but also detrimental to public interest to command the respondents to permit rectifications at the fag end of a recruitment exercise which commenced in December 2018. The stipulations contained in the advertisements and notices issued were never assailed by the petitioners prior to participating in the recruitment process. It would be unfair not just to the respondents but to the other selected candidates to now accord them such permission which would necessarily result in the selection process being stalled and derailed. This Court as well as the Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that such a course being tread would be wholly unfair and unwarranted. The Court repels the challenge to the Government Order of 4 December 2020 being contrary to the mandate of Rule 14. It
also negatives its challenge on the ground of being discriminatory or unfair.
These petitions shall consequently stand disposed of with liberty to the State respondents to evaluate the case of each of the petitioners before this Court in light of the Government Order dated 4 December 2020."
Accordingly and with the consent of parties, this petition shall stand disposed of on similar terms.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Vivek Kr.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 OthersRelied on¶6
Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ-A No. 11079 of 2020 decided on 14.12.2020]
Arti Pal
State Of U.P.
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
