Dismissed

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another v. Ridhi Yadav and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022SPLA/619/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order permitting an OSCE candidate to appear in the Mains examination after a technical snag was dismissed. The court noted the petitioner had already appeared and declined interference to prevent a travesty of justice, ruling the order not as a precedent.

What did the court decide?

No further relief; the appealed order permitting the candidate to appear was not interfered with.

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 619 of 2022 Appellant :- Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission And Another Respondent :- Ridhi Yadav And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Avneesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gagan Mehta

¶3

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Shikhar Tandon, holding brief of Sri Avneesh Tripathi, for the appellants; and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Gagan Mehta, for the respondents.

¶5

This intra court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2022 passed in Writ-A No.13095 of 2022 by which the writ petitioner (Ridhi Yadavrespondent no.1) has been permitted to fill up her online application form to appear in the Mains Examination of Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Mains Examination-2022.

¶6

The case of the writ petitioner was that she cleared Prelims Examination and had to appear in the final written examination. For appearance in final written examination, she deposited the requisite fee through U.P.I. transaction ID 223543272181 and had to submit application online by midnight of 25.08.2022. It is her case that due to technical snag in the server the form could not be submitted and therefore, on 26.08.2022, she represented to the examining body to permit her to fill online application form. As no favorable action was taken, she filed Writ-A No.13095 of 2022 for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider her representation and allow her to fill online application form so that she could appear in the Mains Examination.

¶7

Learned Single Judge after going through the pleadings of the parties and taking notice of an interim order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the Apex Court in Akansh Dhull and others Vs. Union Public Service Commission and others: Writ Petition (Civil) No.779 of 222 in some what similar situation, directed the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3, who are the appellants herein, to permit the petitioner to fill up her online application form so that she could appear in the Mains Examination.

¶8

Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submitted that there was a specific stand taken in the counter affidavit that there was no technical snag in the UPPSC Portal and in paragraph 8 it was stated that on 24.08.2022, 86

¶9

candidates had uploaded their online form and on 25.08.2022, 18 candidates had uploaded their online form therefore, the story set up by the writ petitioner had no basis. It was submitted that the requirement of submitting documents by a specified date has been treated as mandatory by a Full Bench of this Court in Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. and another (Writ-A No.7401 of 2015, decided on 14.08.2015) therefore, the learned Single Judge fell in error by relying upon an interim order of the Apex Court to grant relief to the petitioner.

¶10

During the course of hearing, we put a specific query to the learned counsel for the appellant whether, pursuant to the impugned order dated 16.09.2022, the writ petitioner has been allowed to fill her application form and appear in the written examination.

¶11

Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, fairly stated that as this appeal remained pending and no interim order could be passed timely, the writ petitioner was allowed to fill the application form and appear in the written examination.

¶12

We also put a query to the learned counsel for the appellant whether the Public Service Commission can demonstrate that the portal wherein forms were to be uploaded till midnight of 25.08.2022 remained functional till that time and developed no snag at any stage.

¶13

Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Commission, stated that this aspect would have to be examined because it might not be easy to ascertain whether the server was operative till midnight because there may be no uploading till midnight as candidates may have uploaded their form earlier.

¶14

Be that as it may, since the writ petitioner has been allowed to fill the application form pursuant to the order dated 16.09.2022 and she has also appeared in the written examination pursuant to that exercise, it would be travesty of justice to deny her the fruits of her labour at this stage, particularly, when from the record it appears that she had already deposited the fee for her appearance in the mains examination of which the transaction ID is there on record. In the peculiar facts of the case, we decline to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge by observing that the order of the learned Single Judge shall not be treated as a precedent.

¶15

Subject to above, the appeal stands dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 9.11.2022/AKShukla/-

¶17

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2022.11.14 14:08:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another v. Ridhi Yadav and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another v. Ridhi Yadav and Another

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

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Anup Kumar Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Renoo Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Ranjan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gramya Parishad Chakshaym Kiraon and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary, (Institutional Finance and Registration) and 12 Others

Mahendra Kumar Singh and 7 Others Vs Smt. Aradhana Shukla