Dismissed

Ravi Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2021WRIA/13996/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking liberty to rectify errors in a teacher recruitment application. The petitioner failed to file in time and could not offer a plausible explanation for the delay after the results were declared.

What did the court decide?

Permission to rectify incorrect entries in the application form for the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination was denied.

Ravi Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

RESERVED

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13996 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Mohan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Dev Rai,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 i.e. the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education, Prayagraj to allow the petitioner to rectify the incorrect entries made in the Online application form filled by him for appearing in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019.

¶7

It is stated that the petitioner had mistakenly entered the name of his mother and father in wrong columns and had also made a wrong entry of the grand total of theory paper of B.Ed. examination. It is stated that after filling the application form, this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner and as such he approached this Court in the present writ petition.

¶8

It is stated that the mistake committed by the petitioner is a human error and necessary correction can still be made by the respondent authority.

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed in the month of December, 2020 without giving the dates of examination and the final results. Vague assertions have been made in the writ petition regarding the said fact of error coming into knowledge of the petitioner. The latches in filing the present writ petition is explained with the contention that the deponent could not obtain the coupon of affidavit and his photograph could not be clicked on account of the disruption due to pandemic Covid-19.

¶10

It is contended that in the similar facts and circumstances, this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner in Saurabh Kumar Rajput and others vs. State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education & others (Service Single No. 19777 of 2020) with the direction to allow the petitioners therein to make correction of the wrong entries.

¶11

Having perused the record of the writ petition and noticing that the petitioner had approached this Court without giving a plausible explanation for delay and that the final results of the

¶12

recruitment examination had been declared much earlier, the prayer of the petitioner to seek correction of entries cannot be entertained.

¶13

The Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. [2015 (8) ADJ 219] has emphasized the sanctity of a last date. It is held therein that the process of recruitment where public examinations are held on a large scale, the candidates must remain attentive of the last date for submission and compliance with the time schedule which has been indicated is mandatory. A Division Bench in Km. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of U.P. [Special Appeal Defective No. 582 of 2016] has refused to grant relief to make correction in the entry in the column of marks of the High School Examination. The decision in Archana Chauhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Civil Appeal 3068 of 2020 decided on 2.9.2020] relied by the petitioner therein to seek correction of entry had been distinguished being given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Another Division Bench in Arti Verma Vs. State o U.P. and others [Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014] has observed that accepting such a plea of the appellant therein would result in a situation which creates grave uncertainty in the completion of the selection process.

¶14

It was observed therein as under:-

¶15

" Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed. "

¶16

Another learned Single Bench of this Court in Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another (Writ-A No. 8697 of 2020) did not permit the petitioner therein to rectify the mistake taking note of the above decisions of the Division Benches and Full Bench of this Court.

¶17

In view of the above legal position, having found that the petitioner has approached this Court with delay, i.e. much after completion of the selection process, no liberty can be granted to him.

¶18

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 01.3.2021/Brijesh

¶20

Digitally signed by Justice Sunita Agarwal Date: 2021.03.01 12:58:26 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amar Singh Singhania Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brij Bhushan Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhusudan Ray Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Guddu Kumar Purbey Vs Union of India and 2 Others