Allowed

Ravi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023WRIA/247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition where a police recruitment candidate was rejected due to a clerical error in his education mark-sheet. The Court held that the petitioners corrected qualification, awarded in 2018, was valid for the 2022 selection process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.12.2022 is set aside; the petitioner is permitted to appear for the medical examination within three weeks.

Ravi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 247 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Tripathi,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Abhishek Mishra holding brief of Shri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 as well as learned standing counsel for the State-respondents No.1 to 3.

¶6

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground not having the educational qualification eligibility on the last date of the Advertisement which was issued for selection on the post of Sub-Inspectors in Civil Police as well as Platoon Commander in PAC. A further direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner and permit him to appear in the medical examination.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance of the advertisement, issued by the respondent No.2 for filling up vacancies of Sub-Inspectors in Civil Police as well as Platoon Commander in PAC, the petitioner had filled in his form and was also issued an admit card, wherein, he appeared for the written examination and qualified the same. On 12.06.2022, the respondents declared the final result, wherein the petitioner was found duly selected as a successful candidate.

¶8

On 14.10.2022, the Senior Superintendent of Police Moradabad, District Moradabad issued a letter to the petitioner requiring some documents including the graduation mark-sheet.

¶9

In furtherance thereof, the respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 28.11.2022 requiring him to furnish his explanation as to why his candidature may not be cancelled.

¶10

The ground taken was that the mark-sheet which has been furnished by the petitioner indicated that he had not cleared the second year examination in his Bachelor of Arts.

¶11

The petitioner on 09.11.2022 filed his reply before the respondent No.2 and also stated that on account of clerical error, the aforesaid discrepancy existed and he had already moved the University concerned to rectify the same.

¶12

On 16.12.2022, the petitioner furnished a corrected mark-sheet in the office of the respondents and also sent a copy thereof by registered mail on 22.12.2022.

¶13

It is further submitted that the University noticing the error had issued a fresh mark-sheet indicating that the petitioner had cleared the second year examination and also a fresh degree indicating that the petitioner had cleared and obtained a degree in Bachelor of Arts from Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University in the year 2018.

¶14

It is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid variation and rectified documents were not considered and the impugned order dated 19.12.2022 has been passed which has caused the prejudice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot be put to any prejudice for want of lack of bonafide inasmuch as the petitioner had no role and the error was at the end of the University which has been cleared and the degree which has been awarded relates to the year 2018, therefore, it cannot be said that on the date of the advertisement, the petitioner did not have the requisite educational qualifications.

¶15

Learned standing counsel for the State-respondents have filed their written instructions under the signatures of the Additional Secretary (Appointment), U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotional Board. In the said written instructions, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner had filed his mark-sheet which indicated that he has not cleared second year examine whereas the first and third years were cleared. The last date for selection was 12.06.2022 and in view thereof, it is clear that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification on the late date. Even when the petitioner furnished his explanation, in pursuance of the show-cause notice, he admitted the fact that there was certain discrepancies in the mark-sheet and it was mentioned that the petitioner had not cleared his second year examination.

¶16

It is also urged by the learned standing counsel that it is now well settled that the eligibility of the candidate must be decided with reference to the qualification possessed on the last date of receiving application and in the instant case, the last date was 12.06.2022 and on the said date, the petitioner did not possess the

¶17

requisite qualification, hence, there can be no error found in the decision taken by the authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

¶18

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶19

At the outset, it may be noticed that it is not disputed that the petitioner had cleared the written examination. The discrepancy in the mark-sheet which has been pointed out indicated that the petitioner had cleared the first year and third year examinations and it is only the second year examination which indicated that it was not cleared. It is also not disputed that this error has been rectified by the University and the University has issued a corrected mark-sheet as well as a degree that relates to the year 2018 i.e. the year when the petitioner passed out and obtained a degree.

¶20

This Court finds that it is not a case where the degree has been granted after the last date of selection, rather the degree relates to the year 2018 whereas the last date of selection was 12.06.2022. Any rectification in the mark-sheet or the degree is going to relate back to the year when the petitioner obtained the degree and it cannot be said that for the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner did not possess the qualification. It is not the case of the respondentsauthorities that the rectified degree or the mark-sheet which has been provided by the petitioner is not genuine or authenticated. The corrected mark-sheet as well as the degree has also been furnished by the petitioner, but the same has not been considered.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the reasons for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.2022 is set aside. A direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the rectified mark-sheet as well as the degree and permit the petitioner to take the medical examination and do the needful within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶22

In the result, the petition is allowed . In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Rakesh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi 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

Dr Jay Prakash Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajeet Kumar Srivastava and 18 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Paras Nath Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pramila Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shiv Shodhan Dubey Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Raj Narayan Agrahari Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another