Disposed

U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another v. Siddharth and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2024/191/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a direction to the U.P. PSC to allow a physically challenged candidate to appear in the main examination. The court held that since the candidate failed to secure the requisite cut-off marks for his disability category, the appeal became infructuous and was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of as infructuous; the result sheet was to be returned to the appellant.

U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39658-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 191 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru. Secy. And Another Respondent :- Siddharth And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Counsel for Respondent :- Dr. V.K. Singh,C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

1.This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WRIT-A No.1345 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and the appellant Commission was directed to declare the result of the respondent No.1 of the preliminary examination and it was further directed that if the respondent No.1 had cleared an examination, he should be allowed to appear in the main examination.

¶7

The respondent No.1 had filed the writ petition, inter-alia with the submissions that he had participated in the preliminary examination by the orders of the Court in respect of the recruitment to the post of Civil Jude (Junior Division) which was advertised on 10.12.2022. It is claimed that the respondent was physically challenged and a medical certificate issued indicated his disability at 60% in relation to muscular dystrophy and both his legs were affected.

¶8

Submissions were made that in the advertisement, no reservation was provided for those affected with muscular dystrophy though the said disability was included in the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016

¶9

(for short, 'Act of 2016'). Based on which relief was claimed regarding consideration of the candidature of the respondent No.1 in physical disability category under 'Locomotor Disability'.

¶10

After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge with reference to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 2016 came to the conclusion that the advertisement was defective and consequently passed an order as noticed hereinabove.

¶11

Though notices were issued to the respondent No.1, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant Commission submits that the result of the respondent No.1 has been declared, however, he has not obtained the cut off marks meant for candidates of 'Locomotor Disability Category' and as such, he was not eligible to appear in the main examination.

¶13

Submissions have been made that on account of the declaration of result and the respondent No.1 having failed to obtain the requisite marks, the appeal has been rendered infructuous.

¶14

In view of the fact situation wherein the respondent No.1 has failed to obtain the requisite marks, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. The result produced by the appellant Commission in sealed cover be returned back to the learned counsel for the appellant under receipt.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶16

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶17

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

U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another v. Siddharth and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another v. Siddharth and Another

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

Jaykar Pandey Vs Mustaqeem Ahmad and Another

Jagannath vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Kanpur Mahanagar Dal Millers Association Regd. Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agricultural Marketing and Foreign Trade U.P. Lko. and Others

Kanauji Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Devendra Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Subrata Roy Vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.