Allowed

Saurabh Yadav v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2021WRIA/3924/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed writ petition seeking quashing of selection rejection due to domicile certificate discrepancy. Held dissent result irrational where addresses matched; directed respondents to conduct medical examination before final selection list declaration. Appointment subject to other requirements.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with direction to respondent to conduct medical examination of petitioner within two weeks from submission of copy of order.

Saurabh Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3924 of 2020 Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Jitendra Prasad Mishra

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by the respondent No.4 whereby candidature of the petitioner for selection on the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Rifleman in Assam Rifle Examination- 2018 has been rejected on the ground that he had failed to furnish domicile certificate of District Amroha as per disclosure in column No.'17' "District of Domicile", in the application form filled by the petitioner. The detailed medical examination of the petitioner, therefore, was refused by the respondent.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain inadvertent mistakes had occurred while filling the application form in column No.'17'. In column Nos.'24' and '25' for "Address Detail", postal address and permanent address of District Moradabad has been given. The petitioner had given the same address in the application form which is indicated in the domicile certificate submitted by him. The copy of the application form and the domicile certificate submitted by the petitioner have been appended alongwith the writ petition.

¶6

A perusal of the same indicates that the postal and permanent address of the petitioner mentioned in the application form and the domicile certificate is one and the same. From the entries in column No. '24' and '25' of the application form filled by the petitioner and the domicile certificate dated 04.12.2018 page no.'32' of the paper book, it is evident that the petitioner declared himself to be permanent resident of village Hridayapur, District Moradabad. The domicile certificate, therefore, could not have been rejected on the premise that the petitioner is resident of District Amroha/Jotiba Phule Nagar. The entries in column No. '17' of the application form seems to be an inadvertent error.

¶7

In the order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 had not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the same is therefore, found irrational and is, accordingly, set aside.

¶8

For the stage of selection, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the final result of the selection has been declared on 20.01.2021. As the select list has only been prepared and the selection has not been finalized, this Court finds substance in the prayer of the petitioner to consider him for verification of the document and detailed medical examination.

¶9

The writ petition is allowed giving direction to the respondent to conduct medical examination of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of submission of copy of this order.

¶10

It goes without saying that the selection/appointment of the petitioner on the post-in-question is subject to fulfilment of other requirements by the petitioner.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Himanshu

Saurabh Yadav v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Yadav v. Union of India 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

Jogendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sudheer Kumar Vs District Magistrate , Meerut and 2 Others

Gauri Shankar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vijay Chahar Vs Union of India and 2 Others