Surendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 43

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7969 of 2020

Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyavrat Tripathi,Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Priyavrat Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav learned standing counsel for the State.

¶6

Petitioners have filed this petition seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow to consider the selection of the petitioners on either the post of Constables (Civil Police) or Constable (PAC) for which direct recruitment was initiated in the year 2018 on the basis of their merit in their respective categories.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners also prays that petitioners be allowed to appear in medical examination and be allowed to be placed in the merit list of the category under which they may rightfully belong.

¶8

Petitioners' contention is that an advertisement dated 16.11.2018 was issued inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Constable. They had applied under Ex-servicemen category. Written examination was conducted on 27.01.2019 and thereafter short listed candidates were called for document verification and physical efficiency test held on different dates.

¶9

Petitioners were issued admit cards to appear in document verification and physical test but despite being successful in both, petitioners have been placed neither in the list of

¶10

successful candidates issued by the Recruitment Board nor in the list of unsuccessful candidates.

¶11

According to the petitioners cut-off marks under unreserved category for Ex-servicemen (entitled to horizontal reservation) are respectively 40.9391 and 13.5 for Constable (Civil) and Constable (PAC).

¶12

Petitioners' contention is that they had applied under Exservicemen/Ex-Army men (general category) and were short listed for document verification and physical efficiency test for which admit cards were issued, yet petitioners have not been communicated, reasons for their non-selection forcing them to file present writ petition. It is submitted that petitioner are entitled to be selected on either of the posts of Constable (Civil Police) or Constable (PAC) but despite request being made to the respondents, no result is forthcoming, therefore, this writ petition.

¶13

Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned standing counsel for the State in his turn submits that as per the conditions of the advertisement there is a provision for vertical and horizontal reservation only for the domiciles of State of U.P. It is submitted that last date for filling up the application form was 08.12.2018. According to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, as contained in clause 6(c)(1), it is categorically mentioned that the domicile certificate should be obtained up to the last date of filling up of the application form. Clause 6 (8) also provides that the certificates issued in the prescribed proforma only will be entertained. Similarly, in clause 6(d) of the advertisement, it is mentioned that all the entries made in the application form and the photographs affixed on it so also the signatures are as per the requirements of the Board. If any deficiency like lack of clarity of photograph or other deficiencies are found then candidates themselves shall be responsible for such deficiencies.

¶14

In this back drop learned standing counsel submits that petitioner no.1 Surendra Kumar obtained domicile certificate

¶15

on 15.12.2018, petitioner no.2 Arun Kumar obtained domicile certificate on 18.03.2019 and petitioner no.3 Praveen Kumar obtained domicile certificate on 02.05.2019, therefore, as domicile certificates produced by the petitioners having obtained after the cut-off date i.e., 08.12.2018, they are not entitled to horizontal reservation under the category of Exservice men/army personal.

¶16

It is also submitted that moderated marks of petitioner no.1 are 141.53550, petitioner no.2 61.65320 and for petitioner no.3 they are 90.06770. They being lesser than the cut-off marks prescribed for general category candidates viz., 193.8763 and 180.4081 respectively for Constable (Civil Police) and Constable (PAC), petitioners are not entitled to find their names in the select list.

¶17

Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court dated 17.09.2020 passed in writ 'A' no.5013 of 2020, Moredwaj Singh vs. State of U.P. and two others wherein dealing with the similar controversy coordinate bench of this Court has held that restrictions contained in paragraph no.5.4(6) will come in way of the petitioners. It is further held that for claiming reservation of any type, a candidate has to be a domicile of the State of U.P. The said restriction unequivocally applies to both vertical and horizontal reservation. Thus the benefit of horizontal reservation could be extended in favour of the petitioners under the category of Ex-Army men only to domicile of the State of U.P.

¶18

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners raises a strange argument that if petitioners were not qualified then why were they issued roll number for appearing in the written examination and thereafter admit card for appearing in document verification and physical efficiency test?

¶19

As far as the plea of the petitioners’ counsel is concerned, it is settled law that issuance of admit card does not create any right in a candidate to get selected and appointed to a particular post. Therefore, in the light of law laid by the

¶20

Supreme Court in case of State A.P. and others vs. D. Dastagiri and others, (2003) 5 SCC 373 this argument of the petitioners deserves to be rejected and is rejected.

¶21

After going through the record and hearing the arguments, it is apparent and not disputed that petitioners domicile certificates have been obtained after the cut-off date i.e., 08.12.2018, therefore, on the strength of such certificates obtained after the cut-off date they could not be considered under the reserved category. The requirement for seeking either horizontal or vertical reservation is that a person seeking such benefit should be domicile of U.P. for which necessary certificate in the prescribed proforma should have been obtained before the cut-off date. Admittedly, petitioners have not been able to obtain domicile certificate before the cut-off date, therefore, for their own fault they are not eligible for either horizontal or vertical reservation, therefore, the authorities have rightly considered their case and have found that petitioners having secured less than the cut-off marks under the general category where their case is to be considered in absence of the domicile certificate. This finding and reasoning of the authorities of respondents no.2 and 3 cannot be faulted with.

¶22

Thus petition fails and is dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 20.10.2020 VS

Surendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Committee of Management Swami Shivendrapuri Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nitish Dubey Vs Professor Rakesh Bhatnagar, Vice-Chancellor and Another

Kshetra Pal Vs Anup Kumar, Chief Executive Officerand Another

Yatendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yadav Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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