Vipin Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vipin Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, having projected marks higher than what he actually obtained in the Intermediate examination and thereby taken undue advantage in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher, could claim the benefit of selection. +1 more

Court's answer

The distinction drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court (in Jyoti Yadav and Rahul Kumar) and by the Coordinate Bench of this Court does not help the appellant; a candidate who took undue advantage of higher marks projected in the details is not eligible to participate in the selection, and his candidature, on finding such a discrepancy, is liable to be rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The argument that the appellant, even on the basis of his actual marks, would be entitled to the benefit of selection is misconceived; a prayer for rectification cannot be entertained after the conclusion of the selection process.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Division Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ.), Special Appeal No. 344 of 2021, decided 10.4.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:20419-DB). Intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against dismissal of the writ petition (W.P. No. 1875 (S/S) of 2021, order dated 27.08.2021) claiming benefit of selection as Assistant Teacher. Held, dismissing the appeal: the appellant had projected marks higher than those actually obtained in the Intermediate examination and thereby took undue advantage in the selection process; following the Supreme Court in Jyoti Yadav (W.P.(C) No. 322 of 2021, decided 08.04.2021) and Rahul Kumar (W.P.(C) No. 378 of 2021, decided 29.06.2021), and a Coordinate Bench order in Special Appeal Defective No. 302 of 2020 (dated 22.04.2022), the candidature of a candidate who projected inflated marks is liable to be rejected, protection extending only to those who projected less than actual marks; a plea for rectification based on actual marks after conclusion of the selection process is misconceived.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20419-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 344 of 2021

Appellant :- Vipin Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Sridhar Awasthi,Pradeep Tiwari,Preeti Rajput Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Shivam Sharma

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and the learned standing counsel for the State.

2. This intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1875 (S/S) of 2021, whereby the writ petition claiming the benefit of selection to the post of Assistant Teacher has been dismissed.

3. On a close scrutiny of the judgment impugned herein, it is gathered that the petitioner, by projecting marks higher than what he actually obtained in the Intermediate examination, had taken undue advantage in the selection process. This controversy went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and was decided in Writ Petition (Civil)

No. 322 of 2021 titled Jyoti Yadav and

Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, decided on April 8, 2021, and in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 378 of 2021 titled Rahul Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, decided on June 29, 2021 .

4. In light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav (supra) and Rahul Kumar (supra) , a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Special Appeal Defective No. 302 of 2020, vide order dated April 22, 2022, has also opined that the candidature of candidates, who had projected marks higher than those actually obtained, was liable to be rejected in the selection process. However, the protection was granted only to those who had projected their marks to be less than actual. The distinction drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court does not help the case at hand. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Coordinate Bench rather fortify the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that a candidate who had taken undue advantage of the higher marks projected in the details would not be eligible to participate in the selection and his candidature, on finding such a discrepancy, is liable to be rejected.

5. Once the Writ Court, having applied its mind in the right perspective of the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, has dismissed the writ petition by recording detailed reasons, the argument that the appellant, even on the basis of

the actual marks obtained by him, would be entitled to the benefit of selection is, in our considered opinion, misconceived, and the prayer for such rectification cannot be entertained after the conclusion of the selection process.

6. The Special Appeal, arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2021, being bereft of merit, is accordingly dismissed .

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J) Order Date :- 10.4.2025 A.Dewal

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