Quashed

Abhay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2022WRIA/11297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order cancelling a recruitment selection based on forensic reports violates Article 14 when passed without issuing a show cause notice. The court quashed the impugned order for non-compliance with natural justice at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.02.2022 quashed at admission stage with liberty to proceed per Ran Vijay Singh law.

Abhay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11297 of 2022 Petitioner :- Abhay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶4

By this petition a writ of certiorari has been sought seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 issued by by the Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. Further writ of mandamus is sought against the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner as Constable, PAC on the basis of his selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.11.2018.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled on the basis of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., reffering thereof it has been mentioned in the impugned order that on the basis of the expert opinion, at different stage of the recruitment, the finger prints inscription of the petitioner do not matched with the biometric.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is stigmating in nature and the order has been passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and with the impugned order, the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is further submitted that the impugned order has civil consequences and the same could not have been passed without complying the mandatory provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶7

In support of his submission, he has relied on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of "Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. Union of India" reported in "Manu/UP/2584/2018". Emphasis is on para no. 25, 26 and 28.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the written instructions has opposed the writ petition submitting that the petitioner has been found guilty for committing impersonation and the decision of cancelling his selection has been taken on the basis of the opinion of the experts, the finger prints of the petitioner as well as the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and there is no illegality in the order impugned.

¶9

In the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) this Court has held that before cancelling the selection, the respondents were expected to confront the petitioner with the material relied upon against the petitioner and hence the shows cause notice containing such materials which have been relied upon by the respondents while taking the decision against the petitioner should have been given to them. The relevant para nos. 25, 26 and 28 of Ran Vijay Singh's (supra) case are extracted below:-

¶10

"25. The respondents were expected to confront the petitioners with material relied upon against them. A show cause containing such materials was required to have been issued, particularly when petitioners were being debarred from appearing in any other exam conducted by Commission for three years. The notice dated 5.8.2015 cannot be construed as a show cause notice. It only called upon the petitioners to give their specimen signatures, handwriting and thumb impression in view of Commission's opinion that they do not match. After the CFSL report was received neither the petitioners were put to any notice, nor the content of report was made known to them.

¶11

26. The opinion of handwriting expert was required to have been viewed with other materials available on record. Admittedly the petitioners had carried their identity cards, which had been verified at all stages of examination by the Commission and their officers. There cannot be a presumption that all the staffs/employees of Commission had failed to correctly identified the petitioner despite existence of identity card. The presumption that petitioners had identified themselves with reference to specified identity cards could not be lightly brushed aside. The fact that respondents had admitted thumb impressions and specimen thumb impressions with them, which have not been tallied also, is a factor to be kept in mind. There apparently was no reason for the respondents not to have verified the identity of petitioners with reference to their thumb impression, which is an evidence superior to the report of handwriting expert. The nature of expert's opinion otherwise not being conclusive, could not solely be relied upon to cancel petitioners' provisional selection, ignoring other materials, particularly when the order itself was stigmatic.

¶12

28. Although the report of Government Laboratory and opinion of its experts would be entitled to weight, particularly when no bias or mala fide is alleged, yet, being in the nature of opinion, it cannot conclusively establish impersonation on part of the petitioners. The respondents' action is otherwise not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that action of respondents in cancelling petitioners' provisional selection, and debarring them from appearing in any exam conducted by the Commission for three years, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Orders impugned dated 27.10.2016 and 14.12.2016, accordingly, stands quashed."

¶13

The law laid down by this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) has been relied by the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the special appeal No. 1045/2018 "Union of India and six others Vs. Ran Vijay Singh and 35 others".

¶14

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as

¶15

perusal of the record particularly the impugned order as well as written instruction received by the learned Standing Counsel which are on record do not depict that any show cause notice was given to the petitioner or the material which has been relied by the respondents to cancel the selection of the petitioner has been supplied to the petitioner so as to enable him to give explanation. Thus, the impugned order suffers from noncompliance of the principles of natural justice and hence, at the admission stage, with the consent of the parties, the impugned order is quashed giving liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra).

¶16

Order Date :- 9.9.2022/RC

¶17

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.09.13 12:49:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of U P and 4 Others

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

Om Prakash Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Vishnuji Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shubha Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Udai Pratap Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others