Allowed

Anand Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2021WRIA/1069/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's candidature for Assistant Teacher recruitment. The rejection was based on a clerical error regarding marks obtained and the university of B.Ed. qualification. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.10.2020 was set aside, and the petitioner's candidature was directed to be considered expeditiously as per the Government Order and legal precedents cited.

Anand Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1069 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.10.2020, whereby the case of the petitioner has not been considered for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2019. The reasoning as indicated in the order dated 27.10.2020 against the petitioner is that the petitioner had obtained 973 marks in the B.Sc. Examination, whereas by filling online application he filled marks obtained as 873 marks and the second reasoning is that the petitioner has qualified his B.Ed. Examination from Jammu University.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner argues that the second objection does merit acceptance as the said question was considered by this Court in Judgment dated 19.11.2020 passed in Writ - A No.403 of 2020 (Smt. Shalu Sharma and another Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) wherein the question of B.Ed. Degree issued by the Jammu University was duly considered. It is stated that the said judgment was upheld in Special Appeal , that was filed by the respondent, by order dated 04.02.2021 passed Special Appeal Defective No.121 of 2021. As regards the first objection, counsel for the petitioner argues that the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 in fact contemplated and provided for situations that arise on account of wrongly filling the details while applying online. The said reasoning quoted here-in-

¶7

below:-

¶8

^^¼1½ ;fn vH;FkhZ }kjk ewy vadi= ds lkis{k izkIrkad de Hkjk x;k gS rks ,sls vH;FkhZ ls de vad Hkjus dk leqfpr vfHkys[kh; vk/kkj izkIr dj fy;k tk;A leqfpr vk/kkj ik;s tkus ij vH;FkhZ ls bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= vfuok;Z :i ls ysdj fd og viuh Hkjs gq, de vad ds vk/kkj ij p;u ls lger gS rFkk Hkfo"; esa vf/kd izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij esfjV ifjorZu dh ekax ugh djsxkA pwfd esfjV esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gksuk gS] bl dkj.k mldks fu;qfDr i= fuxZr dj fn;k tk;A^^

¶9

He further argues that even otherwise no benefit was given to the petitioner as on account of error as he filled 100 marks less than what he had obtained in the B.Sc. Examination.

¶10

I am of the view that the second objection for not consideration of the candidature of the petitioner, is not tenable in law and is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shalu Sharma (supra) and the first objection is not tenable in the light of the Government Order which is very clear. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , wherein, scope of the Government Order dated 04.12.2020 was duly considered and recorded as under:-

¶11

"8. It must however be stated here that the authorities are not strictly following the intent of the G.O. and the circular. For example, the office order dated 28.03.2021 issued by the Basic Teacher Education Officer, District Hardoi, shows cancellation of the candidature of one Raghav Sharan Singh at Serial No.4, though the projection of marks by way of mistake by said candidate was to his disadvantage. Logically, said candidate

¶12

would be entitled to have his candidature considered and reckoned at the disadvantage level. The record shows that even with such disadvantage, the candidate was entitled to be selected.

¶13

We have given this illustration only by way of an example. The authorities shall do well to consider every such order issued by them and cause appropriate corrections or modifications in the light of conclusions state above."

¶14

In view of the clear mandate of the Government Order dated 4th December, 2020 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 27.10.2020 insofar as it relates to the petitioner is set aside with directions to consider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

The petition is allowed in terms of the said order.

¶16

Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.7.2021 Atul

Anand Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Shri Thakur Radha Govind Chandra Dev Ji Maharaj Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Suraj Mukhi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja Patel and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna and Another Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vikas Kumar Asthana and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others