In intra-court appeal against Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition, the Highest Court held that the appellant's failure to declare her qualification rendered her ineligible. Rejection of candidature and refusal to allow correction were upheld as lawful.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Serial No. 9
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 453 of 2021 (In Writ-A No. 10243 of 2021)
Appellant :- Indumati Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and others
Counsel for Appellant :- Mr. Babu Ram Yadav, Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Aakash Rai, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Standing Counsel
Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal,Chief Justice Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The challenge in the present intra-court appeal is to the order dated August 16, 2021 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
The appellant in the case in hand was a candidate for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Home Science) for which the minimum qualification required for being appointed is T.G.T. was Bachelor of Education. In the online application filed by the appellant admittedly, she had filled up 'No' in the column of aforesaid qualification. Considering the aforesaid, the candidature of the appellant was rejected.
The stand taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that the column of qualification was inadvertently filled as 'No'. Subsequently, she tried to correct the said error but she was not permitted though initially she was allowed to appear in the written examination.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any case is made out for interference in the present appeal. Once in the online application submitted by the appellant, she had admittedly not mentioned about her having B.Ed. qualification, she has rightly been considered to be not eligible for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher. There is no error in the action of the Board in not permitting her to correct the error as sought by the appellant later on as the same would have delayed the finalization of the selection process. An identical argument was considered by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated January 27, 2022
2 SPLA No. 453 of 2021
in Special Appeal No. 33 of 2022 , titled as Vinay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others , and after dealing with the various orders passed by this Court and relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it has been opined that any error committed by a candidate, even if inadvertent, in filling up the OMR Sheet, cannot be condoned and his candidature is liable to be rejected, for which clear instructions had been issued.
For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date :- 28.1.2022 Shiraz/SA
(Prakash Padia, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the omission to mention the B.Ed. qualification in the online application warrants interference despite inadvertent error.
Whether the Board acted correctly in refusing to permit late correction of the qualification error after written examination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vinay Kumar vs. State of U.P.Distinguished¶10
Special Appeal No. 33 of 2022, Vinay Kumar vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Indumati Yadav
State of U.P.
Rajesh Bindal
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
