Dismissed

Sandeep Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2020WRIA/4698/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of an opportunity to an online application fee submission. The court relied on a coordinate bench judgment, holding that accepting such requests would derail the recruitment process and lead to a flood of similar grievances.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner was not entitled to relief.

Sandeep Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4698 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sandeep Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Charlie Prakash,Kamal Krishna Roy Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶4

Petitioner has filed this Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4698 of 2020 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authority to permit the petitioner to submit his online application form which petitioner in pursuance of Advertisement No. A-1/E-1/2020 dated 21.4.2020 issued by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for various posts.

¶5

Under similar facts and circumstances of the case, a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 987 of 2020; Sachin Kumar Vs. State of UP and another has dismissed the writ petition on 18.1.2020 with the following observations :

¶6

"The petitioner for whatever reasons took the risk of waiting for the last date to deposit his fee and by some misfortune, could not do so on account of vagaries of the internet. The petitioner's conduct is blameworthy in the sense that he waited for the last date to deposit the requisite fee, inviting the risk of something like what befell the petitioner; it was inherent when the petitioner chose to wait for the last date. Now, on the other side, if the petitioner's request were to be accepted on ground that he was ultimately not responsible for the fee being deposited in time, it would lead to a situation where there would be no end to such applications being flooded with the Commission. There could be scores, hundred or thousands of candidates with a similar grievance. If it were permitted, it would lead to reopening and rescheduling the entire recruitment process, which must have gone ahead after the last date of deposit of fee was over. This certainly cannot be permitted as it would derail the entire recruitment process.

¶7

In this view of the matter, in the clear opinion of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to relief."

¶8

Since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court, where petitioner himself admitted to deposit the fee after extended last date, no indulgence can be shown. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed as such.

¶9

Order Date :- 13.7.2020/S.K.S.

Sandeep Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Pandey and Another 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

Smt. Vidyawati and Another Vs Amt Kumar Kerkatta and 4 Others

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Kumar Malviya Vs Union of India and 4 Others