This appeal challenged an appointment rejection due to non-submission of a residence certificate within the stipulated deadline. The court upheld the lower court's dismissal, ruling that failure to comply with advertisement directions bars appointment.
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.
1
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2 of 2021
Appellant :- Surendra Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Singh,Yogesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether one would be eligible for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Constable even if the directions given in the advertisement are not followed. It is a case where the petitioner-appellant submitted an application for his selection to the post of constable pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2018. The petitioner-appellant appeared in the selection but failed to submit required document on the date appointed for it. It was the domicile/residence certificate of the State of U.P. which should have been issued on or before the last date of submission of the application form. The last date for submission of application form was 08.12.2018 whereas the domicile/residence certificate of 15.12.2018 was submitted by the petitioner. It was not of a date prior to last date of submission of application form despite clear direction for it in the advertisement.
For ready reference revenue clause of the advertisement given in para 6-(Ga) (1) is quoted below:-
mRrj izns'k dk ewy fuokl izek.k i= ¼o'kZ 2018 esa fdUrq bl HkrhZ izfdz;k gsrq fu/kkZfjr vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk rd fuxZr gksuk pkfg,½
A perusal of the para quoted above, directs for submission of residence certificate issued on or before last date of submission of application. The petitioner-appellant has admitted, he has not
2
produced the residential certificate issued on or before 08.12.2018. He was thus non-suited for appointment. The writ petition preferred by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 20.10.2020 after referring the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State A.P. and others Vs. D. Dastagiri and others, (2003) 5 SCC 373 .
Any person submitting application form for selection needs to comply the direction given in the advertisement which in this case has not been followed by the petitioner-appellant despite a clear direction for it. The failure of the petitioner-appellant has gone adverse to him and accordingly if he was not appointed on the post then no illegality is attached in it.
In view of above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition after considering not only all the relevant arguments but judgment cited by the petitioner-appellant at bar.
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed . Order Date :- 18.1.2021 piyush
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an applicant is eligible for appointment if they fail to submit strict deadline documents despite clear advertisement directions.
Whether the Special Appeal should succeed in quashing the dismissal of the writ petition regarding the non-submission of documents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State A.P. and others Vs. D. Dastagiri and othersReferred¶11
State A.P. and others Vs. D. Dastagiri and others, (2003) 5 SCC 373 · Who else cites this
Surendra Kumar
State Of U.P.
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
