Allowed

Dharmendra Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2021WRIA/5384/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition by a selected candidate denied counselling due to postponement while in legal custody. The Single Judge held that deprivation was attributable to respondent inaction and directed authorities to grant the candidate a special case for counselling within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 4 to permit petitioner for counselling as special case; Respondent No. 3 to issue necessary instructions to complete process within four weeks.

Dharmendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5384 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Shri. Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Arun Kumar, counsel appearing for Basic Shiksha Parishad.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the State Government had invited applications for recruitment of Assistant Teachers by means of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2019. The petitioner being eligible participated in the examination and was allotted Roll No. as 35356632605 and subsequently the petitioner participated in the said examination and qualified the same in terms of the result declared on 12.5.2020. It is further alleged that on 13.5.2020 the State Government notified the recruitment of 69000 Assistant Teachers from amongst the candidates who had passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 and the petitioner also claims to have applied in terms of the said Notification. It is further alleged that the petitioner was included in the list of selected candidates issued on 11.10.2020. It is further alleged that after the process of selection, the

¶7

process of counselling was notified for 14th/15th October, 2020, however, as the petitioner was arrested in a case being Case Crime No. 426 of 2020. the petitioner could not appear in the counselling. It is on record that the State Government issued fresh date for counselling on 9^th , 10^th , and 11^th December, 2020, however, the petitioner could not appear once again as he was still in custody. The petitioner moved an application before the court concerned through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini, Prayagraj seeking permission to participate in the counselling, on the said application, the Special Judge, Gangster Act directed the Superintendent of Central Jail to take action in accordance with the Jail Manual on the application of the petitioner. In terms of the said direction given by the Special Judge, Gangster Act, the Superintendent of Central Jail forwarded the application of the petitioner for counselling alongwith the letter dated 07.01.2021 to the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the respondent no. 3. The petitioner could not appear in the counselling, however, subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.11.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge. It is further on record that along with the case registered against the petitioner and other persons as Case Crime No. 426 of 2020 another case was also registered against the petitioner while Case Crime No. 099 of 2020 under the U.P. Gangster Act. The petitioner was enlarged

¶8

on bail in the said case vide separate order dated 12.1.2021.

¶9

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that alongwith the petitioner six other eligible candidates were co-accused, however, as they were not arrested, they participated in the counselling and were given the appointment despite the pendency of the criminal history. He further argues that despite the petitioner having qualified in the examination and being found eligible, he was denied the right to participate in the counselling solely on account of inaction of the Jail Superintendent and thus he claims that his right could not be taken away only on account of inaction of State Authorities.

¶10

This Court, vide order dated 08.07.2021, has directed Sri Arun Kumar to appear on behalf of Basic Shiksha Parishad to obtain instructions, he has placed before this Court the instructions dated 19.7.2021 which are taken on record. In terms of the said instructions, it is stated that as the petitioner did not appear on the dates fixed for counselling, his candidature was not considered. He further argues that out of the six persons referred to paragraph no. 27 of the writ petition four persons have been appointed after counselling and two of the said persons have not been appointed and their candidature have been rejected as there were discrepancy in their application.

¶11

On the basis of the arguments made at the Bar, what emerges is that the petitioner has been

¶12

denied the benefit of counselling only on the ground that he could not appear on the dates fixed for counselling. There is no defence that the petitioner could not have appeared for counselling on account of his involvement in criminal case as stand of the respondents is that four other coaccused in the same case crime no. have been given appointment.

¶13

In view of the pleadings as discussed above, it is clear that the right of the petitioner to appear for counselling were on account of inaction by the Jail Superintendent in not deciding the application of the petitioner on time.

¶14

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, further argues that the dates for counselling were rescheduled on the instructions of the State Government and the respondent no. 3 cannot do anything as the counselling has already concluded.

¶15

I have already held that the deprivation of the petitioner from counselling is clearly attributable to the acts of the respondents and I am of the clear view that the petitioner could not have been deprived of the right of counselling. All the respondent authorities including the Jail Superintendent are part of the State and collectively cannot take stand that the rights, which accrued to the petitioner, and denied on account of inaction have come to an end.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶17

The respondent no. 4 shall permit the petitioner

¶18

for counselling as special case. The respondent no. 3 is further directed to issue necessary instructions for counselling of the petitioner as special case. The said process shall be completed within four weeks.

¶19

The petitioner shall have liberty to approach this Court, if any difficulty arises in the implementation of this order.

¶20

It is further clarified that after counselling the necessary consequential action shall be taken. Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Puspendra

Dharmendra Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Patel 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

Bhuvneshwar Dayal Tyagi Vs Union of India and Another

Pratibha Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sumitra Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kanti Devi Vs Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and 2 Others

Brijesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others