Dismissed

Neeraj Sharma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020WRIA/1315/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to permit appearance in the Computer Typing Test for Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari posts. The court held that strict compliance with the last date for document submission is required and no relief could be extended as the petitioner failed to meet the deadline established in Rajendra Patel.

What the court decided

AI extract

Neeraj Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1315 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Neeraj Sharma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Dwivedi,Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avanish Tripathi,Avnish Tripathi,F.A.Ansari,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,M.N. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Shri F.A. Ansari, learned counsel appears for the U.P. Public Service Commission (the Commission).

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the Computer Typing Test for the post of Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari in terms of Advertisement No.A-4/E-1/2017 and for a further direction to the respondents to consider and decide representations of the petitioners and to take consequential action accordingly to permit them to appear in the selection process.

¶7

At the very outset, Shri F.A. Ansari, learned counsel for the Commission has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and relied upon the representation so made by the petitioner dated 10.01.2020 appended as Annexure No.7-C to the writ petition from which it is apparent that the last date of submission of form was 28.1.2019 and admittedly the petitioner has submitted Computer Certificate (PGDCA) on 6.2.2019 after the last date of submissions of form. As such it is submitted that the petitioner is not liable to be considered for appearing in the selection process. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P. & Anr. , 2015 (8) ADJ 219 (FB) wherein it was observed that a candidate is required to comply with the conditions as given in the advertisement within the time stipulated. Moreover, it is also contended that result in the matter has already been declared on 2nd March, 2020 and as such for all practical purposes at this stage no relief can be extended to the petitioners.

¶8

The record in question reflects that an advertisement was issued by the Commission on 30.12.2017 for 465 posts of Samiksha Adhikari/ Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari etc. in different departments. The last date of submissions of online application was 30.01.2018. In terms of the advertisement the petitioners filled up the online form for the post of Sahayak Samiksha

¶9

Adhikari. The petitioners were declared qualified in the preliminary examination. Consequently the petitioners appeared in the written examination but were not allowed to appear in the computer typing test on the ground that the petitioners have not submitted all the required documents on or before the last date of submission of application form. It is contended that the petitioners have been shortlisted because of minor technicality. The petitioners have arbitrarily been subjected to discrimination and even the petitioners have not been afforded any opportunity. In this regard the petitioners have also made several representations but of no avail.

¶10

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as respectfully considered the judgment in Rajendra Patel (Supra). For ready reference, the relevant para 22 of the judgment in Rajendra Patel (Supra) is quoted as under:-

¶11

"22. For these reasons, we hold that where the Commission requires the submission of a hard copy of the online application together with all accompanying documents by a prescribed last date and has clearly placed the candidates on notice of the fact that an application which is submitted beyond the last date together with the prescribed documents would result in the invalidation of the candidature, the condition which has been imposed by the Commission would have to be scrupulously observed. It would not be open to the Court to hold that notwithstanding such a clear condition, an application which has not been received by the last date should be entertained. The Commission has given an option to candidates of submitting their applications in the hard copy by either of the two modes, namely by registered post or by personal delivery. A candidate who has opted for one of the two modes, is required to comply with the condition that all the requisite four stages are completed within the time stipulated."

¶12

The Court finds that so far as pleadings are concerned, the same are admitted by the parties. Admittedly the petitioner had not deposited all the requisite certificates on or before the last date of submission of form in terms of advertisement. It is well settled that all the documents must be deposited on or before the last date of their submission and no relaxation in this regard should be granted. The Court finds that in the light of the judgment in Rajendra Patel (Supra) no relief can be extended to the petitioners at this stage.

¶13

In view of above, the Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 SP/

Neeraj Sharma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Neeraj Sharma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jodhika Prasad Pandey Vs Ram Narayan Vishwakarma, District Inspector of School

Bilal Uddin Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Kripa Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rampal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others