High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's claim for appointment. The petitioner had disclosed inflated marks; the bench followed Supreme Court precedent that misrepresentations preclude appointment rights.
Petition dismissed; petitioner not entitled to appointment due to misrepresentation of marks.
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.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2361 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vijay Laxmi Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Ram Bilas Yadav for the respondent no.3.
Petitioner wants consideration of her claim for appointment against Assistant Teachers' Recruitment Examination, 2019, whereby 69000 appointments were to be made. In the online application form petitioner has disclosed his marks as 442 on the basis of which her claim was considered but appointment letter has not been issued to her as petitioner has scored only 422 marks and has misrepresented the correct marks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the mistake was inadvertent and even by the reduced merits he would get selected. The petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel.
Issue as has been raised in this petition has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021, decided on 8.4.2021, wherein their Lordships in paragraph 13 to 17 have observed as under:-
"13. The stand of the State is that every candidate was obliged to fill up the relevant entries in the application form correctly and specially those pertaining to the marks obtained by the candidates in various examinations with due care and caution. The information given in the application form would reflect in quality points of the candidates and have a direct bearing on the merit list. That would in turn, not only determine the inter se merit but afford guidance to cater to the choices indicated by the candidates. The declaration which was spelt out in the Guidelines
and repeated in the Advertisement, had clearly put every candidate to notice that if there be any mistake in the application form, the candidate could not claim any right to have those mistakes rectified.
05.03.2021 to be correct, the cases of the petitioners must be held to be governed fully by the rigors of the said Communication.
Facts of this case are squarely covered by the adjudication made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.
Writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2022 Atul kr. sri.
Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.04.11 16:03:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can be granted appointment on merit after disclosing erroneous higher marks in the application form.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and othersFollowed¶8
Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021
Vijay Laxmi Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
