Dismissed

Rampal Bhartiya and 22 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Legislation – Writ Petition – Extension of Time

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2020WRIA/1620/2020

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in chamber dismissed a writ petition filed by 23 candidates challenging their exclusion from a Block Education Officer examination due to inability to pay fees online. The Court held that the claim of internet disruption was not convincing given the conduct and accepted applications of others, and ruled it inappropriate to interfere given the advanced stage of the examination. No me

What did the court decide?

No indulgence to allow late deposit of fee; petition dismissed for lack of merit.

Rampal Bhartiya and 22 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

In Chamber

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1620 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Rampal Bhartiya And 22 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Gautam,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.)

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh,Nishith Yadav,Nishith Yadav

¶6

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶7

The present writ petition has been nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to this Court vide order dated 14.8.2020.

¶8

The Court has been convened through video conferencing.

¶9

Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vikas Chandra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.2&3.

¶10

On 11.2.2020, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

¶11

"The petitioners, 23 in number, have filed the instant petition with the grievance that they could not deposit examination fee by internet banking, as required in terms of the advertisement dated 13.12.2019 on account of disruption of internet services in the State. The recruitment is for the post of Block Education Officers. The application was to be submitted in three stages. In the first stage, the candidate has to get himself registered online followed by payment of fee also by online mode and thereafter actual submission of the application form also by online mode. The last date for fee submission was 10.1.2020. All the petitioners have successfully got themselves registered online. The case of the petitioners is that because of disruption of internet services in the State on account of agitation going on in different districts against the Citizenship Amendment Act, they could not deposit the fees. They have, therefore, filed the instant petition with the prayer that their representation praying for extension of time be directed to be considered favourably.

¶12

Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶13

respondents no.2 and 3 points out that U.P. Public Service Commission had received more than five lakhs applications so far. He points out that complaint regarding disruption of internet services has been received from 67 candidates only. He places reliance on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 18.1.2020 in Writ-A No.987 of 2020 (Sachin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another), wherein this Court in respect of the same recruitment and somewhat similar grievance dismissed the writ petition. The fact of that case was that the candidate therein had got himself registered online on 10.1.2020 which was the last date. He thereafter tried to deposit the fee but in which he remained unsuccessful. In the said backdrop, the Court held that the candidate himself was responsible for not being able to deposit the fee. He was having sufficient time from 13.12.2019 to 10.1.2020 to deposit the fees. He ought not to have waited for almost a month for initiating the process for submitting his application. The Court also observed that in the meantime, in every likelihood, the Commission must have proceeded with the selection process and directing it to accept the application at this stage would lead to reopening and re-scheduling the entire selection process.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable. In the present case, almost all the petitioners had got themselves registered in December, 2019 itself. The petitioners were preparing for P.C.S. Entrance Examination which was held on 15.12.2019. After they got free, they tried to deposit the fee by online mode. It is pointed out by referring to various documents filed alongwith the writ petition that repeated attempts to deposit the fee on different dates, much before the last date, had remained unsuccessful. It is further pointed out that the respondent Department, in respect of inviting applications from the teachers for exercising option for inter-district transfer, extended the last date for submitting online applications, having regard to similar request that there had been regular disruption of internet services in different districts in the State on account of the same agitation. The submission is that the disruption of internet services in the State in the month of December, 2019 and January, 2020 is an acknowledged fact. In such circumstances, even if the number of candidates, who could not succeed in uploading their forms, may be small but their grievance could not be overlooked, particularly when the failure of system was not in their hand nor could be anticipated in advance. Their grievance should be addressed to in a sympathetic manner, particularly when nothing much has progressed in respect of the recruitment which is underway. It is

¶15

submitted that the date of holding the written examination is 22.3.2020 and thus, sufficient time is available. There would be no difficulty if the time for deposit of fee is extended by a few days.

¶16

Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 is directed to file affidavit of Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission disclosing the present stage of the recruitment process. It shall clearly be disclosed in the affidavit as to what further steps have been taken by the Commission after the last date of submission of application forms and whether any step already taken is such which is irreversible or in case a few days' time is allowed, would it necessarily derail the selection process. The affidavit shall be filed by 20.2.2020.

¶17

Put up as fresh on 20.2.2020."

¶18

Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged. The present matter has been listed today in the additional cause list on the urgency application filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that the examination for the post of Block Education Officer is to be held on 16.8.2020 by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, hence the same was posted for today.

¶19

The counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that all the petitioners have got themselves register for appearing in the said examination in view of the advertisement dated 13.12.2019 and they could not deposit the requisite fee by online mode for appearing in the said examination by 10.1.2020 which was the last date for deposit of fee on account of agitation regarding C.A.A., the internet services have been discontinued overall the State of U.P. with effect from 17.12.2019 till 23.12.2019. He argued that all the three stages being interconnected and applicant could proceed for final submission of application form only after generation of print registration slip and thereafter issuance of payment acknowledgement receipt. Thereafter, only the third stage of proceeding for final submission of application form would be available to a candidate. Normal services could be restored only with effect from 4th January, 2020 although availability of network had become possible intermittently between 23rd December, 2019 to 4th January, 2020. The other petitioners had also sought to make payments of examination fee but on account of nonavailability of network whenever they tried to make payments, the payment acknowledgement receipts showing failed payments could also not be generated. The aforesaid occurrence in totally attributable to defects in the availability of network services for enabling online payments.

¶20

On the last date i.e. 10th January, 2020, all the petitioners had tried to make one last attempt to submit their forms after paying examination fee but on 10th also the network services were badly affected throughout the state of U.P. or at least in the districts where the petitioners were located and thus, all attempt of the petitioners to deposit the examination fee online were defeated because of deficiency in network services specially as the fee could be submitted only online.

¶21

In absence of the deposit of the examination fee, the third stage of the submission of final form could not be effected and thus, the petitioners could not submit the entire online form' and it was due to unavoidable circumstances, could not deposit the requisite online fee and fulfil the subsequent stage for filling up the online forms and this court may grant indulgence to the petitioners who are 23 in number for appearing in the said examination which is now scheduled for 16.8.2020.

¶22

Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 has submitted the queries made by this Court vide its order dated 11.2.2020 are stated in para nos.17 to 19 of the counter affidavit which are reproduced as under:-

¶23

"17. That after the closure of the online application forms, the process in respect of holding the examination was initiated and as of today is almost being completed.

¶24

18. That the steps already taken by UPPSC in respect of the present selection are as:- (1) allocations of centers in 18 districts (2) the printing of question papers have been completed (3) the printing of OMR sheets have been completed (4) Roll Numbers have been allotted to the candidates, but the Admit Card would be issued just 15 days prior to the date of examination (5) All the materials required for holding examination in different allocated district is under process of distribution, as due precautions are already in motion as the same is highly confidential.

¶25

19. That the stages, which have been so completed, are irreversible and the UPPSC is making all due efforts to adhere to the calendar issued in respect of holding of examination as scheduled and any interference at this stage would put UPPSC in a position, wherein the examination could not be conducted on the scheduled dates, which would effect lakhs of students who have already applied against the advertised post."

¶26

Further he has drawn attention of the Court towards para 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondents wherein three charts have been given demonstrating the case of

¶27

each of the petitioners who fall in three categories on the basis of relevant record. It was found that the petitioners who are 23 in number have been segregated in three categories i.e. (I) the petitioners who did not even attempt to apply for the second stage i.e. petitioner no.1 Ram Pal Bhartiya, petitioner no.3 Manoj Kumar, petitioner no.4 Saraswati Kanaujiya, petitioner no.6 Kamini Jaiswal, petitioner no.8 Krishnawati Pal, petitioner no.10 Anjali, petitioner no.14 Mayank Singh, petitioner no.15 Pankaj Yadav, petitioner no.18 Kshamata Dwivedi, petitioner no.19 Ambrish, petitioner no.20 Amit Gupta, petitioner no.21 Rajeev Kumar, petitioner no.22 Ashish Kumar, petitioner no.23 Avinash Kumar Shukla, (II) the petitioners who made an attempt to deposit fee by online mode on the last date i.e. 10.1.2020 are petitioner no.5 Maneesha Devi, petitioner no.9 Saurabh Singh, petitioner no.11 Priti Maurya, petitioner no.12 Shaurya Pandey, petitioner no.13 Mamta Gautam, petitioner no.16 Vivekanand Mishra, (III) the petitioner no.2 Sandhya Devi, petitioner no.7 Manisha Devi and petitioner no.17 Rajni Rani just made one attempt in a month to deposit fee by online mode on 26.12.2019, 29.12.2019 and 3.1.2020 respectively but their attempt failed.

¶28

He further contended that the Commission has received more than 5 lacs applications and petitioners had enough time to get the online fee deposit for which approximately one month time was allotted to them by the Commission and to say that the internet services were disturbed all over the State as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner because of the Citizenship Amendment Act protest etc. is wholly unfounded as there were several other candidates through out the State of U.P. who have completed the third stage and submitted the application form well within the time for appearing in the said examination. The three charts which have been mentioned in para 9 of the counter affidavit itself shows the casual conduct of the petitioners. Out of 23 petitioners, 14 petitioners did not made second attempt after their registration and 6 petitioners only made an attempt to deposit the fee on the last date of submission of online fee as per the advertisement on 10.1.2020 and the three petitioners made attempt to deposit fee on the dates on which there was no interruption in the internet in the State or in any particular district.

¶29

He vehemently argued that the advertisement in question was published on 13.12.2019 after 15.12.2019, the candidates were having more than 28 days to complete online application form in respect of the advertisement. More than 5,28,313 candidates have applied and completed third stage of form in the same period for which the petitioners contend that there was interruption of internet services and he has also tried to

¶30

demonstrate the number of applications which were received date wise from 13.12.2019 to 10.1.2020 i.e. last date of submission of fee through documents annexed as Annexure-24 to the counter affidavit.

¶31

He relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of "Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. and another" reported in 2016 (1) UPLBEC 331 which while considering the similar controversy came to the conclusion that "when the Commission holds Public Examination of such large scale, candidates must be clearly aware of the fact that it is not open to a candidate to decide as to when an application should be submitted and the compliance in time schedule, which are indicated as mandatory, if it is not read to be mandatory, the entire process of holding examination would stand dislocated".

¶32

Thus it was argued that from the charts which has been referred in para 9 of the counter affidavit, it is apparent that out of 23 petitioners/candidates 14 petitioners/candidates did not even attempt to initiate the process of depositing examination fee i.e. second stage and 6 petitioners/candidates attempted to second stage on or after the cut of date i.e. 10.1.2020 hence the observation made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WritA No.987 of 2020 (Sachin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 18.1.2020 would be squarely applicable in respect of the said 6 petitioners of whom detail is being referred in Chart no.2 in the preceding paragraphs. He further pointed out that the observations of this Court in respect of the same selection in the case of "Dayaram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others" bearing Writ-A No.1764 of 2020 decided on 7.2.2020 . The orders passed by the co-ordinate Benches in both the cases, where not challenged by the said candidates before this Court in Special Appeal or any other higher forum till date.

¶33

He lastly argued that as the examination is scheduled to be held on 16th of August, 2020 and all the process of examination has been completed hence at this stage this Court may not grant any indulgence to the petitioner in the present writ petition as it would disturb the entire examination process which is being conducted by the UPPSC in the entire State of U.P. on such a large scale and it would cause great hardship to the candidates who have submitted their application forms in time for appearing in the said examination.

¶34

Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate when confronted with the legal proposition of law which has been cited above by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4, he could not dispute the same and only

¶35

reiterated that the petitioners case may be sympathetically be considered by this Court as the petitioners cannot be put at fault for the prevailing circumstances in the State of U.P. which were beyond their control when they were required to submit their online application forms for the aforesaid recruitment process by 10.1.2020.

¶36

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that the application forms were to be submitted in three stages. All the petitioners have got themselves registered by online mode for appearing in the examination for the recruitment of Block Education Officer. 14 petitioners out of 23 petitioners, after getting registration for appearing in the said examination did not made an attempt to fulfill the second stage i.e. of depositing the fee by online mode for appearing in the said examination and 6 petitioners only made an attempt to deposit the fee on last date of submission of online fee as per the advertisement i.e. 10.1.2020 and they failed. Three petitioners only made one attempt each on 26.12.2019, 29.12.2019 and 3.1.2020 respectively to deposit the online fee but they remained unsuccessful. The act and conduct of the petitioners as has come on record shows that they were not at all serious in submitting up their online application forms by depositing fee by the last date i.e. 10.1.2020 as was required by the advertisement dated 13.12.2019 and the ground taken for not submitting the same in time by the counsel for the petitioner is not at all convincing and reasonable, particularly taking into account the fact that similarly other situated several candidates have submitted their application forms as per the advertisement dated 13.12.2019 on or before 10.1.2020 throughout the State of U.P. when the internet services was said to have been disturbed and their application forms in three stages which they have submitted online mode were accepted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for their appearing in the aforesaid examination.

¶37

The examination is now scheduled to be held on 16.8.2020 and all the formalities of conducting the same is complete and admit cards etc. have also been issued to the candidates for appearing in the said examination by the UPPSC and at this last juncture, in my humble opinion, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in the present writ petition granting any indulgence to the petitioner for allowing them to deposit the fee by online mode for appearing in the examination for recruitment of Block Education Officer in the State of U.P. which is to be conducted on a large scale and large number of candidates have submitted their online form in three stages timely as per the advertisement issued for the said recruitment process would definitely cause great hardship to the other

¶38

candidates and dislocate the entire process of holding examination. Moreover, considering the proposition of law as has been settled by this Full Bench decision in the case of Rajendra Patel (Supra) and further the order passed by the coordinate Benches in the case of Sachin Kumar (Supra) and Daya Ram Yadav (Supra) which were dismissed on 18.1.2020 and 7.2.2020 respectively of the candidates with respect to the identical controversy which remained unchallenged by the said candidates till date in the Special Appeal before this Court or any other higher forum, therefore, it is also not possible for this Court to consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically as has been prayed by the Counsel for the petitioners.

¶39

In view of the foregoing discussions, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶41

No order as to costs.

¶42

Order Date :- 14.8.2020 Anil K. Sharma

Rampal Bhartiya and 22 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampal Bhartiya and 22 Others v. State of U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishabh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu @ Satyapal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh @ Sairabh Pundir Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Ganesh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Bind @ S. R. Bind Vs State of U.P.

Munnu Bind Vs State of U.P.