Disposed

Sandeep Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024WRIA/182/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-appointment despite equal marks and lack of suitability test for selected candidates. Court did not decide merits but disposed of the petition by allowing right to seek RTI and directing respondent to decide representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move under RTI Act; Respondent directed to decide representation within four weeks.

Sandeep Krishna vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl… — RTI and Transparency | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3194

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 182 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sandeep Krishna Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,

¶6

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred for a direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to carry out the suitability test of petitioner as provided in Rule 15 (3) of Part 5 of U.P. Sub Ordinate Educational Block Education Officer (Gazetted) Inspection Branch Service Rules, 2012 and to direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to provide appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Block Education Officer.

¶8

It has further been prayed to direct the respondent no. 2-U.P. Public Service Commission to provide the details of the selectees under O.B.C. category scoring 203 marks out of 400 marks with their Roll Nos, Name, Father's Name and Date of Births and to further direct the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representations of the petitioner dated 09.10.2023 and 03.11.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an advertisement dated 13.12.2019 was issued by the respondent no. 2-U.P. Public Service Commission for appointment on 309 posts of Block Education Officer. Petitioner being fully eligible had applied against the said advertisement but in the select list, the name of petitioner did not find place in the list.

¶10

It is further submitted that the last candidate, who also belongs to O.B.C. Category as the present petitioner, has been given appointment. He had secured 203 marks. Petitioner has also secured the same marks but without conducting the reexamination for suitability test amongst the petitioner and other candidate, appointment has been given to the other candidate.

¶11

It is further submitted that after declaration of results three more candidates have been given appointment. It has next been submitted that after the selection 15 candidates have not joined. The said fact could be seen from letter dated 26.09.2023 issued by the Assistant Education Director (General)/Public Information Officer to the petitioner therefore, the petitioner has made a representation for consider his candidature against the said posts.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the candidate who has been given appointment. It is further submitted that there is no provision for re-examination for the suitability test as alleged by the petitioner under Rule 15 (3) of the U.P. Sub-ordinate Educational Block Education Officer (Gazetted) Inspection Branch Service Rules 2012.

¶13

It is further submitted that the three candidates, who have been given appointment after declaration of final list is for the reason that document of three candidates were found to be forged and their selection was cancelled subsequently and out of those two posts belong to General category and one to Schedule Caste so no vacancy occurred under the O.B.C. category to which the petitioner belongs.

¶14

The fact that 15 posts are left vacant due to non joining of candidates as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in pursuance of information given under the R.T.I. Act has not been disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents.

¶15

It is further submitted that as far as the prayer no 3 made in the present petition is concerned, the petitioner has right to obtain such information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 2005) and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the liberty may be given to the petitioner to seek information as prayed in the prayer no 3 of the present writ petition under the Act, 2005 and a direction may also be issued to the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the representation dated 03.11.2023 .

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel representing the Commission have no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merit of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move an application under the Act, 2005 for obtaining information as prayed in prayer no 3 of the present writ petition. Respondent no. 3 is directed to take a decision on the representations of the petitioner, as mentioned hereinabove, within a period of four weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is served.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Ashish

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rishabh Shukla Vs Comptroller and Auditor General of India New Delhi and 3 Others

Ram Nawal Caretaker Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Dhruv Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Mahila Kalyan Lko. and 4 Others

Sunil Kumar Alias Sunil Kumar Singh Pno. No. 132280253 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Sandeep Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Gunjan Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Information and Pu