Dismissed

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024WRIA/13770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging his disqualification as an Assistant Teacher candidate due to an invalid OMR series. Relying on Supreme Court and coordinate bench precedents, the court held that the error was not a candidate's disadvantage but a failure to admit less merits than obtained, leading to discharge of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it lacks merit; no interference called for in the matter.

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144421

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13770 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritesh Singh,Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Shashi Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :-

¶8

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to consider the application dated 13.05.2020 of the petitioner (Annexure no.3 to this writ petition).

¶9

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to valued the answer sheet of the petitioner."

¶10

It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that due to human error petitioner has not filled the booklet series of the OMR Sheet hence result was shown invalid and the copy was valid. The aforesaid mistake is human error hence same is liable to be condoned.

¶11

It transpires that petitioner filled his application form for the appointment on the post Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2019 and participated in the aforesaid examination in the year 2020 and results of which was duly declared on 12.05.2020 in which he was not found selected on the ground of "invalid series". It is further argued that after the aforesaid decision was taken various representations were made by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 but till date no decision has been taken hence present writ petition.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 30.05.2020 passed in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 5 AllLJ page 36 . He also placed reliance upon paragraph

¶13

nos. 20 and 21 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as follows:-

¶14

"20. The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be human in nature. The petitioners should have read the instructions that were issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to the marks obtained by them in their previous examinations. The contention that this was an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the petitioners, then this would result in a situation where the petitioners would get the benefit of a wrong if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed the petitioners could always turn around and claim that this was a result of a human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. From perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the error/errors committed by the petitioners are neither minor nor are human error/errors.

¶15

21. In view of the facts as narrated above as well as the law laid down by the differnt Division Bench of this Court from time to time as well as by the Apex Court, no relief could be granted to the petitioners."

¶16

Apart from the same, he also placed reliance upon the Coordinate Bench judgment of this court dated 18.04.2023 passed in Writ A No. 2901 of 2023 (Vandana vs. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others), which reads as follows:-

¶17

"Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.01.2023 whereby an order has been passed cancelling the selection of the petitioner mainly on the allegation that while filling the forms in the online application, the petitioner had disclosed to have 1058 marks whereas in the original marks-sheet total marks obtained by the petitioner was 1057. The said order has been passed in the light of the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 and the letter dated 10.03.2021.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that by entering the wrong forms, which were on account of inadvertence, no advantage has ensued in favour of the petitioner as in any way the petitioner has obtained more marks than the last candidate in the cut-off list and thus, the inadvertent error should not be the basis for denying the appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No(s).378 of 2021 decided on 29.06.2021 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Secretary, Basic Education Board v. Jubeda Bano; 2022(40) LCD 755 and the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.302 of 2020 (Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 22.04.2022, in support of this arguments.

¶19

Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 argues that the question with regard to the benefit flowing on account of inadvertence were duly raised and considered by this Court in Special Appeal No. 153 of 2022 (Secretary Basic Education Board and Anr. v. Pratibha Mishra & Ors.) decided on 19.04.2022 and were repelled.

¶20

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is undisputed that while filling the online application form, the petitioner had disclosed the marks obtained by her as 1058 whereas the actual marks obtained by the petitioner was 1057. That being the admitted position, the issue is squarely covered by the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified the issue after considering the Government Orders to the following effect:

¶21

"7. We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form."

¶22

In view of the law as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶23

In view thereof, no reason for interference is called for. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

This order has been passed in the presence of Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. "

¶25

From perusal of the same, the Court is of the opinion that the controversy involved in the present case is absolutely identical as in the aforesaid cases specially in the case of Vandana (Supra).

¶26

In this view of the matter, no reason of interference is called for. Writ petition is lack of merit and accordingly, dismissed .

¶27

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Pramod Tripathi

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitra Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Priyanka Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kranti vs President Public Service Commission Up Prayagraj and Another

Smt Anita Rani vs State of Up and 4 Others

Sudhiraj Singh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ganesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others