Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15777 of 2018 Petitioner :- Avneesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
An order passed on 27.2.2017, rejecting petitioner's representation, pursuant to order of this Court is under challenge. It appears that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.22848 of 2016, which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 7.10.2016:-
"The petitioner has preferred this writ petition inter alia for the following relief:
"A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the directing the respondents to rectify the mistake and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in Physical Test in Police Constable and Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment-2015 because according to his original Mark-sheet he has secured 400 marks out of 600 marks, having percentage 66.66% in High School Examination, in the interest of justice."
The grievance of the petitioner is that his High School marks have been incorrectly calculated. The petitioner has got 400 marks out of 600 marks, thus, he secured 66.66% marks in High School. In the Intermediate he got 332 marks out of 500. The petitioner had made application in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents for the recruitment to the post of Constable. The respondents have issued cut off marks and had displayed through online. The petitioner was shocked to note that his High School marks have been shown 346 out of 600 (57.67%), which is incorrect, whereas, as stated above, he has got 66.66.% marks (400/600 marks). The petitioner has made several representations for correction of the said mistake by the respondents, however, no action has been taken.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Puspraj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 75 of 2013, decided on 18th January, 2013, wherein the following observations have been made:
"Petitioner had submitted an application for B.T.C. Course 2012 and in the application form he wrongly described himself as female candidate for which his application has not been accepted as yet. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition considering the condition mentioned in paragraph-4 of the guidelines prescribing therein that in case incorrect entires have been made, the application shall not be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of this court in Archana Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. and others in special appeal no. 2312 of 2011 disposed of on 13th January, 2012 substantiate his submission that incorrect entry was a human error. Petitioner does not stand to gain anything by making such incorrect entries. In the said case candidate therein had also made incorrect entires in relation to the marks obtained by him. This court held the same to be a human error and directed the respondent therein to provide B.T.C. Training to the appellant. The ratio drawn in the said judgement applies to the present case also. We therefore, dispose of the special appeal with the following direction:-
1. Mistake committed by the petitioner being unintentional he may be permitted to make necessary correction in the application and his application be considered for B.T.C. Course . The special appeal is allowed. The judgement of the Single Judge dated 7.1.2014 is set aside."
In view of the said law, a direction is issued upon the third respondent to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."
The claim of petitioner has been examined and rejected by passing order impugned on the ground that in terms of clause 6.4 of the advertisement, there was no provision for allowing rectification of details feeded online. The order is challenged on the ground that the authorities ought to have considered petitioner's request inasmuch as petitioner intentionally has not filled lower marks while he had scored higher marks.
It is not in dispute that more than 22 lacs candidates applied for nearly 33000 posts and the entire process was online. Clause 6.4 of the advertisement specifically provides that the details feeded online in the application form would not be permitted to be corrected. The authorities appear to have stuck to the provisions contained in the advertisement in view of the fact that large number of applications had been received and the process was online. The recruitment otherwise has attained finality. There is otherwise no justification to challenge the order dated 27.2.2017, after such inordinate delay. In such circumstances, no interference in the matter is called for, particularly as the process of recruitment has otherwise concluded.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Ashok Kr.