Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8083 of 2021 Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushanprakas And Others Respondent :- State Of U. P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
Petitioners are before this Court with a request commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in selection proceedings for Fireman Jail Warder and Constable Mounted Police.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Pradeep Kumar Kuntal And 65 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 12 Others (WRIT - A No. - 3312 of 2019, dt. 18.10.2019), wherein, grievance of the petitioners were segregated into four categories as follows.
"(a) Petitioners, who have been denied consideration on the charge that they indulged in impersonation during the conduct of recruitment.
(b) Petitioners, who have not been able to secure marks above the cut off in their respective category.
(c) Petitioners, who have allegedly not participated in the physical standard test and the document verification.
(d) Petitioners, who have failed to qualify the physical standard test. and as such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner."
The coordinate Bench of this Court has considered all the four categories in detail and finally dispose of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 18.10.2019. The relevant is extracted herein below.
"(iv) Petitioner nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 39, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 62, 65 and 66, who petitioners who have been non-suited on account of mismatch between their thumb impression on the admitted documents vis-a-vis thumb impression obtained on the date of document verification etc., would be informed of the materials that exist against them in respect of respondents' plea that petitioners have indulged in impersonation. Such intimation would be given to them, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Petitioners in that regard would have an opportunity to submit their reply annexing materials that they intent to rely upon in support of their claim. The authorities shall get the matter examined and would pass an appropriate order, within a further period of two months, thereafter. While taking such decision, the authorities would keep in mind the observations made by this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh (supra)."
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement at bar that the case of the petitioners falls in category (a) aforementioned and as such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioners.
The above said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is not being disputed by learned Standing Counsel.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of Pradeep Kumar Kuntal (supra). However, an independent consideration is to be made by the competent authority as to whether the case of the petitioners falls in the aforesaid category (a) and further the consideration would only be made in case the entire selection proceeding has not been finalised in the matter.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi Date: 2021.07.28 16:45:08 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad