Remanded

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

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021WRIA/1190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a representation regarding inadvertent errors in recruitment marks, the court remitted the matter to the District Basic Education Officer to decide the representation by a speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.4 to decide petitioner's representation by a speaking order within six weeks, produced via authorized computer copy.

Navneet Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1190 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Navneet Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Chand Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Sharad Chand Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in primary schools in a recruitment process initiated in the year 2019. The B.T.C. examination marks were incorrectly entered by the petitioner in the application form due to inadvertence. The marks recorded by the petitioner in the application form were 1159, but the correct marks of the petitioner were in fact 1167. The petitioner was issued appointment letter and an institution was also allotted to him. However, the appointment process has now been halted because of the discrepancy in the application form. The petitioner stands to gain nothing from the incorrect marks entered in the application from.

¶6

It is then contended that such human errors are liable to be condoned in light of the Government Order dated 04.12.2020. The petitioner has made an application in this regard. However the same has not been decided till date.

¶7

The only prayer made by Shri Sharad Chand Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

Shri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.

¶9

3 and 4 submits that the applicability of the Government Order is a matter of fact which needs to be determined in the first instance by the competent authority. He, however, in his usual fairness submits that the authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the representation of the petitioner within expeditious time frame considering the nature of the rights of the petitioner which are at stake.

¶10

Learned counsel for both the parties agree that no useful purpose will be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this writ petition pending before this Court. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

¶11

Without going into the merits of the case, the matter is remitted to the respondent no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur.

¶12

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, to execute the following direction:

¶13

The respondent no.4-District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, shall decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad, alongwith a fresh copy of the representation.

¶14

The computer generated copy of such order be self attested by the petitioner (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said

¶15

Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.2.2021 Dhananjai

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navneet 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nirmala Devi Vs Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Kasia and 2 Others

Om Nath Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Jag Mohan Vs D.D.C. and Others

Pratibha Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jasveer Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others