A special appeal challenging a dismissal of a writ petition regarding recruitment discrepancies was dismissed. The court held that the appellant's failure to appear without justification precluded entitlement to an extra opportunity.
The special appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to show justification for non-appearance.
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. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 38 of 2021
Appellant :- Yogesh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar,Hira Lal Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. Order on Exemption Application
Heard.
This exemption application is allowed.
Order on Memo of Appeal
By this special appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 01.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed.
It is a case where after a written examination, the appellant-petitioner was called for Documents Verification and Physical Standard Test. On the appointed dated I.e. 12.12.2019, appellant-petitioner did not appear before the committee for verification of documents, rather an application was given on 16.12.2019 for one more chance. The respondents by their order dated 03.01.2020, gave another opportunity to all the absentees for their appearance on the date nominated therein. So far as the appellant-petitioner is concerned, he was to appear for verification of documents on 08.01.2020. Even on the aforesaid date, the appellant-petitioner failed to appear and subsequently the application was given on 18.01.2020 to seek another opportunity. The perusal of the application
dated 18.01.2020 does not show reason for nonappearance on 08.01.2020, other than to indicate rest advised by the doctor though, the appellant-petitioner was to appear only for Documents Verification and Physical Standard Test.
The challenge to the action of the respondents is mainly on the ground that the female candidates were given three opportunities while the male candidates were given only two opportunities for that.
We do not find any reason for giving extra opportunity to the appellant-petitioner when he failed to appear before the committee despite giving another date for appearance. There seems to be no justification for non-appearance on 08.01.2020. The representation does not even indicate any reason about the non-appearance on 08.01.2020.
The learned Single Judge thus, refused to cause interference in the action of the respondents because a candidate cannot be given opportunity to appear for Documents Verification and Physical Standard Test as per his/her convenience. If the female candidates were given extra chance, it can be for the reasons and looking to their conditions but such an opportunity cannot be taken as a matter of right by the appellant-petitioner who remain defaulter without any justification on the second occasion for Documents Verification and Physical Standard Test.
Accordingly, we do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single Judge. Hence, appeal fails and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 19.1.2021 A.Dewal
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellants were entitled to an extra opportunity for documents verification and physical standard test given the gender-based discrepancy.
Yogesh Kumar
State of U.P.
Another
Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
