In a writ petition seeking reservation benefits under the O.B.C. (women) category for a Dental Surgeon post, the High Court dismissed the plea as the petitioner failed to rectify a false declaration regarding domicile status within the advertisement's stipulated timeframe.
None. The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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. - 83
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3763 of 2020
Petitioner :- Dr. Supriya Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Bala,Punit Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,F.A.Ansari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Punit Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri F.A.Ansari, learned counsel for the third respondent.
Petitioner is before this Court with a request to issue a mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner as domicile of U.P. and grant consequent benefit of reservation under the O.B.C.(women) category. With a further request to command the respondent Commission to declare supplementary/modified result, if the petitioner secures required marks for selection in O.B.C. women category and is found selected for the post of Dental Surgeon in U.P.Medical Health and Child Welfare, within some stipulated time.
It appears from the record that the respondent Commission had issued an advertisement No. 2/2017-18 dated 30.12.2017 inviting applications for 595 posts of Dental Surgeon in U.P.Medical Health and Child Welfare Department prescribing eligibility and reservation criteria. The petitioner being fully qualified had also applied for the said post. The third row of the candidate's personal information provides, "Are you Domicile of UP? ". Response was " No ". The same is also brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.
The matter was taken up by this Court on 6.3.2020 and on the said date, Sri F.A.Ansari, learned counsel for the U.P.Public Service Commission was asked to seek instructions in the matter.
Sri F.A.Ansari in support of his submissions has relied upon Clause 5 of the advertisement which provides as under.
"If the candidates want some correction or change in their submitted applications, they can submit another fresh complete applications with desired corrections along with prescribed fee within the last notified dates of the advertisement. The application fee deposited with the prior application will neither be returned nor adjusted in any condition. In the aforesaid condition the application submitted by last Registration Number
will be treated as final."
In this backdrop, Sri F.A.Ansari submits that in case there was any factual incorrect averment made by any of the candidate in his/her application form, the candidates were accorded reasonable time to rectify such error as per clause 5 of the advertisement. In the present matter, as per her own personal information in response to the Domicile of UP, the petitioner herself has categorically mentioned as "" No ". He submits that in the present matter, interview was held on 9.10.2019. The result was declared on 2.11.2019 and the necessary recommendation has already been made to the State Government, therefore, at this belated stage, the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain. He has also placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Kanchan Bala and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2018(2) All. LJ 689, Aradhana Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko and Ors. 2016(8) ADJ 19 as well as Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Nilesh Bharti Vs. State (Personnel Dept) Anr .
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in the application form so far as it relates to Domicile as to whether the applicant is Domicile of UP, in response thereof, the petitioner being married in the State of Uttarakhand though was born and brought up in UP with her utmost honesty and fairness, answered as " No ", i.e., NonDomicile of UP. He submits that there is certain ambiguity in clause 13.5 and 13.6 of the instructions, which are related to the reservation and has placed reliance upon clause 13.6, which is reproduced herein below.
"Those candidates, willing to take the benefit of the reservation may obtain a certificate, issued by the competent authority, in support of the reserved category, in the prescribed format printed in this detailed advertisement and submit the same to the Commission, whenever required to do so. Those claiming more than one reserved category will be given only one such concession, which will be more beneficial. The candidates not originally domiciled in U.P. belonging to SC, ST, O.B.C., dependants of freedom fighters, handicapped, Exservicemen and women are not entitled to benefit of reservation. Such candidates will be treated in general category. In case of the women candidates, the certificate issued from father side will be treated valid."
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid clause lead the petitioner to response in negative, therefore, discrepancy was bona fide and is liable to be rectified otherwise the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1376.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record. So far as candidate's personal information regarding Domicile of UP, the petitioner herself has clearly proceeded to response the same as " No " and admittedly, the aforesaid discrepancy qua to the Domicile has not been rectified by the petitioner as per clause 5 of the advertisement as above-quoted. Once it has also been pressed by Mr. Ansari that in the present matter, after selection, necessary recommendation has already been made to the competent authority/State Government, at this belated stage, the Court is not inclined to address regarding petitioner's Domicile as clause 5 of the advertisement clearly provides that in case there is any discrepancy, the candidates can rectify such situation but in the present matter, at no point of time, any correct step has been taken by the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 9.7.2020 A.K.Srivastava
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing correction of a self-declared domicile status discrepancy submitted belatedly without using the prescribed rectification mechanism.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanchan Bala and Another v. State of Uttar PradeshDistinguished¶12
Kanchan Bala and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2018(2) All. LJ 689
Aradhana Pandey v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶12
Aradhana Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko and Ors. 2016(8) ADJ 19
Nilesh Bharti v. State of RajasthanReferred¶12
Nilesh Bharti Vs. State (Personnel Dept) Anr
Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of BiharReferred¶15
Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1376
Dr. Supriya Jaiswal
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
