Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner, Sri A.K.S. Parihar and Sri Aakash Rai, learned counsels for the contesting respondents.
This review petition was preferred with the petitioner alleging that the writ petition came to be disposed of on an incorrect statement made on behalf of the respondents. It becomes relevant to record that the petition came to be disposed of with the Court noting that the cut off marks for OBC category candidates at the written examination stage was fixed at 396.6704 whereas the petitioner had obtained only 393.1278. It was on the basis of the aforesaid statement that it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was not invited to participate in the interview. The Court also noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner at that stage was unable to disclose to the Court the cut off marks fixed for the general category candidates at the written examination stage and whether they had obtained marks equivalent to or less than that obtained by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition came to be dismissed.
The review is based on certain disclosures subsequently obtained by the petitioner by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to learned counsel, those disclosures indicate that the merit of the petitioner at the written examination stage was fixed at 393.1287 and not 393.1278 as was disclosed to the Court. While this issue need not detain the Court since learned counsels submit that the exact marks were incorrectly stated due to inadvertence, the Court takes note of the further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cut off marks for general category candidates at the written examination stage had been fixed at 393.1287 and therefore, the petitioner by virtue of the marks obtained by him at the written examination stage should have been called for interview. The aforesaid statement essentially proceeds on the basis of the provisions made in Section 3(6) of the 1994 Act.
However, the respondents draw the attention of the Court to the decision rendered by the Full Bench in Sanjeev Kumar Singh etc. Vs. State of U.P. and others [2007 (2) ADJ 150] and more particularly to paragraph 52 of the judgment in which the Bench after noticing the relevant provisions noted that Section 3(6) of the 1994 Act would not apply at the intermediate stage and would be applicable only at a time once final results had been collated. Although learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of hearing of this review petition has also placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Judge of the Court in Rohit Verma Vs. State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Edu. Lucknow & Ors. [2020 (6) ADJ 212 (LB)] to contend that the provisions of Section 3(6) would be applicable even at the intermediate stage, the Court notes that no such submission was advanced or addressed at the time when the writ petition was initially heard and dismissed. The Court also bears in mind the recital as appearing in the order passed on the writ petition which recorded that learned counsel was not even aware of the cut off marks fixed for the general category at the written examination stage.
In view of the aforesaid, the review petition shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Vivek Kr.