In this civil miscellaneous review application, the Court dismissed the plea challenging the rejection of candidature in a selection process. The review was rejected as there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2022.
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. - 5
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 110 of 2023
Applicant :- Niraj Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secy. Of Labour And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhisht Saran,Rahul Kumar Kashyap,Triloki Nath Yadav
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
" 6 . The respondent no.2 had published advertisement for various posts including the post of Stenographer (Hindi) in which the reservation for handicapped was also provided. The petitioner had applied for the post of Stenographer (Hindi) in response to the said advertisement. He had submitted an experience certificate dated 10.11.2014 contained in annexure no.5 to the writ petition. The certificate has been issued by the Civil Courts Cooperative Society Ltd. showing experience of four years, however it does not disclose the period during which the petitioner has got the experience.
7. The respondents have also taken ground that the petitioner had not uploaded the high school mark sheet along with the application form, therefore, his marks could not be calculated on the basis of which the candidates were called for the interview. Though petitioner had submitted that the mark sheet was enclosed and it is mentioned in the application form, but whether it was uploaded or not, is not clear.
8. The petitioner had applied under the visual handicap quota and the disability was shown as 30%. The respondents have annexed the Government Order dated 03.02.2008, according to which the persons having minimum 40% disability are eligible under the handicapped quota. Therefore, even if the petitioner had uploaded high school certificate along with the application form, the petitioner is not entitled for being considered for the post in question for the reasons that the period of experience is not mentioned in the experience certificate and the petitioner does not come under the category of handicapped quota."
...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.)
Order Date :- 9.5.2024 Haseen U.
Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 rejecting the review applicant's candidature requiring review.
Whether the applicant's pending application for amendment in the writ petition affects the maintenance of the impugned order.
Whether the review application is misconceived and lacks merit considering the submissions made by the learned counsel.
Niraj Kumar Shukla
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secy. Of Labour And 2 Others
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
