Dismissed

Krishnamohan Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020WRIA/5055/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought correction of errors in his online application form to claim weightage marks for prior service as a Shiksha Mitra. The court held that the applicable scheme explicitly barred amendments after final submission and furnished declaration, distinguishing earlier indulgences made in cases without such specific contractual bars.

What the court decided

AI extract

Krishnamohan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5055 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishnamohan Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Seemant Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Diwedi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming relief of issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to provide weightage of 25 marks to the petitioner on account of working on the post of ‘Shiksha Mitra’ from 15.04.2006 in the process of selection to the post of Assistant Teacher which are to be appointed in different primary schools of different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh by allowing the petitioner to rectify his online application form column-13 by substituting the entries made in column-13.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that applications were invited in terms of the Government Order bearing no.2056/68-4-2018 dated 1st December, 2018 whereby as per the enclosure which forms part of the order guiding principles, guidelines, procedure and timeframe has been prescribed. This is part of the petition and has been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-1. It is submitted that in para-17(3) and 17(4) of this Annexure attached to the order provides that once an online application is filed then applicant shall have no opportunity to amend/rectify the entries.

¶8

It will be mandatory for a candidate that before making submission/final saving of the registration, candidate obtains a print out and matches online entries with the documents. It is further submitted that Clause-17(4) specifically provides that after final saving of the online application concerned candidate will have no opportunity of amendment/rectification and to this effect a declaration is to be filled by the concerned candidate.

¶9

Placing reliance on such provisions of the scheme of the examination, it is submitted that no indulgence is called for, inasmuch as, once a form has been filled, entries have been uploaded then in the name of human error or on any other ground correction cannot be made.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court in the matter of Sanjay Raj Vs. State of U.P. and others vide its order dated 03.12.2012 passed in Writ-A No.42130 of 2008 had shown indulgence in the matter of admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007 and had permitted the petitioner to correct the human error which was due to inadvertent mistake by directing the respondent no.3 to give an opportunity to the petitioner to correct the error of the marks in form and prepare a fresh merit list of the petitioner, in case he has obtained the marks above the cut off marks.

¶11

Similarly, reliance is placed on the decision of learned Single Judge in case of Punit Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. Thr. Principal Secretary Basic Education, Lucknow and others vide its order dated 16.06.2020 passed in Service Single No.9126 of 2020 (Lucknow Bench) wherein, learned Single Judge Lucknow Bench directed that in case, the petitioner has not participated in the counselling, the respondent no.3 shall provide the petitioner one

¶12

¶13

opportunity to make rectification of the details filled up in the online application form, as per correct details found recorded in the documents relied in support of the details filled in the online form.

¶14

Similarly, reliance is placed on the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the Lucknow Bench in Service Single No.9197 of 2020, Anshuman Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secretary Basic Education, Lucknow and others.

¶15

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.4065 of 2020, Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and two others , wherein the Court without entering into the merits of the case directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with a copy of the earlier representations as well as the self attested computer generated copy of this order before the respondent no.3 within a period of one week and, thereafter, directing the respondent no.3 to pass appropriate orders on the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. Learned co-ordinate Bench has clarified that it had not entered into merits of the case and it is for the Authorities concerned to take a decision independently in accordance with law.

¶16

Placing reliance on these judgments, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and be allowed as such.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it will be in the interest of justice, if clause17 of Annexure-1 is reproduced for ready reference inasmuch as none of the orders cited above on the behest of the learned

¶18

¶19

counsel for the petitioner makes a mention of the scheme of the examination. These clauses reads as under:-

¶20

& 17- vku ykbu vkoW nus

¶21

1- lgk;d v/;kid HkrhZ ijh{kk ds fy, lfpo ijh{kk fu;ked izkf/kdkjh] m0iz0 izk;xjkt }kjk ,u0vkbZ0lh0 y[kuÅ ds lg;ksx ls vkWu ykbu vkosnu vkeaf=r fd;s tk;saxsA vkWu ykbu vkosnu gsrq lkW¶Vos;j dk fuekZ.k ,u0vkbZ0lh0 y[kuÅ }kjk djk;k tk;sxkA

¶22

2- vkWu ykbu vkosnu djus ds fy, rduhdh ,oa ifjpkyu lEcfU/kr funsZ’k osclkbV ij miyC/k djk;s tk;saxsA vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ;g lykg nh tkrh gS fd og fu/kkZfjr osclkbV ij vkWuykbu vkosnu djus ls iwoZ vuqns’kksa dks lko/kkuhiwoZd i<+ ysaA

¶23

3- vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vius vkWuykbu vkosnu dh vafdr izfof"V;ksa esa la’kks/ku dk dksbZ volj ns; ugha gksxkA blds fy, vfuok;Z gS fd vH;FkhZ jftLVsª’ku dks lcfeV (Submit)@Qkbuy lso (Final save) djus ls iwoZ mldk fizaV ysdj] vkWuykbu vafdr izfof"V;ksa dk vfHkys[kksa ls feyku vo’; dj ysA

¶24

4- vH;fFkZ;ksa ls jftLVsª’ku dks lcfeV (Submit)@Qkbuy lso (Final save) djus ls iwoZ bl vk’k; ds ?kks"k.kk i= dks p;u djuk vfuok;Z gksxk fd& eSaus vkWuykbu vkosnu ds varxZr fd;s x;s jftLVsª’ku dk fizaV fudky dj mlesa dh x;h izfof"V;ksa dk feyku ewy vfHkys[kksa ls dj fy;k gS ,oa mls lgh ik;k gS rFkk eSa vius jftLVsª’ku dks Qkbuy lso djus gsrq iw.kZr% lger gwW] Qkbuy lso gksus ds mijkUr eq>s vius vkosnu esa la’kks/ku djus dk dksbZ volj ns; ugha gksxkA

¶25

6- vH;FkhZ }kjk vkWuykbu iathdj.k lcfeV (Submit)@Qkbuy lso (Final save) djus ds mijkUr fdlh C;kSjs esa ifjorZu@lq/kkj ds fy, vuqjks/k dks fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls iqf"Vdj.k i`"B esa vH;FkhZ }kjk Hkjs x, fdlh =qfViw.kZ C;kSjs ls mRiUu fdlh Hkh ifj.kke ds fy, ijh{kk laLFkk mRrjnk;h ugha gksxkA vH;FkhZ }kjk vkWuykbu Hkjk x;k la’kksf/kr fooj.k gh vfUre gksxk vkSj Hkfo"; esa vkWuykbu dksbZ cnyko ugha fd;k tk;sxkA”

¶26

A perusal of these clauses makes it abundantly clear that petitioner had read this scheme and had thereafter resorted to filling of the online application. It is not the case of the petitioner that scheme contained in Annexure-1 was not within his knowledge or was introduced subsequently. Once, there is a specific provision that a candidate is required to take out a print out before submitting or finally saving the online application form and is bound to cross check the entries with the documents available with him and, thereafter, he is required to file a declaration that he has cross checked the entries after obtaining

¶27

¶28

the print out of the registration form and have found them to be correct and is fully aggreable to finally save the registration, and after final saving candidate will not be entitled to any opportunity to make any amendment in the application then prayer for amendment on humanitarian ground or technical lapse will amount to defeat the scheme of selection and making it vulnerable to individual convenience.

¶29

Thus for the reason of not taking into consideration, relevant provisions of the examination scheme, there is no iota of doubt that none of the orders cited by the petitioner are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶30

All the orders have been passed on the basis of concession or humanitarian consideration without taking note of the fact that there is a specific declaration filed by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has cross checked the entries before finally submitting/saving the online form.

¶31

Even the order passed in case of Sanjay Raj (supra) though talks of procedural fairness (procedural due process) as interpreted in the case of Meneka Gandhi and has also placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Kavita Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others, [2008 (4) ESC 2762 (All)] , wherein, it has been held that in case there is any human error in that event, it should be ignored.

¶32

Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment in case of Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. as reported in (2010) 83 AIR 1992 (All), but in none of these cases, there was a clause analogous to one reproduced above in the scheme of the examination and looking to the fact that recruitment is to be made to fill 69000 posts, the framers of the scheme appears to be

¶33

¶34

justified in providing for a declaration and denying an opportunity of rectification of entries for whatsoever reason so to complete the recruitment process within the confines of the prescribed time table.

¶35

In one of the above cited judgments clause-17 of the Scheme was placed before the concerned learned Single Judges nor it has been discussed. But, when this clause and its subclauses are perused, it is apparent that there is no provision in the scheme itself for rectification, then in the name of human error, humanitarian consideration or procedural fairness, no indulgence can be shown so to topsy-turvy the selection process just to satisfy the needs of certain individuals who chose to be negligent and reckless in not following the guidelines provided in the scheme and furnished declaration without understanding the contents of the scheme of examination. It is settled principle of administrative law that after game starts then rules of the game cannot be changed to accommodate individual needs and hardships and these rules are to be followed in its true letter and spirit, therefore, petition is bound to fail and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 7.7.2020 Ashutosh

¶36

Krishnamohan Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Krishnamohan Mishra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uma Gupta and 4 Others Vs Paras Jain and 5 Others

National Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager,Civil Lines Vs Smt. Sanju and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Vs Sanjeev Goel

Mohan Singh and Another Vs Rajendri and 4 Others

Madanpal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others