Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13006 of 2020 Petitioner :- Durgesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
None has appeared for the petitioner even in the revised call. This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to correct the Roll Number of B.Ed. Mark Sheet as 15177001006 in place of 300739 and correct the name of University of B.Ed. Mark Sheet as Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P.) in place of Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur CG in online application of the appointment of 69000 Assistant Teacher, which has been filed in pursuance to the Government order dated 01.12.2018 and notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by the Secretary Board."
Dealing with the issue of right to rectify the recitals made in online application forms for the recruitment exercise in question, this Court in Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others [Writ A No. 11079 of 2020 decided on 14.12.2020] held thus:-
"On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid discussion the Court comes to the following conclusions. A permission to rectify and amend entries made in the online applications would be clearly impermissible in light of the caveats carried in the advertisements and notices issued by the respondents as well as the declarations made by the candidates themselves while participating in the recruitment process. It would not only be iniquitous but also detrimental to public interest to command the respondents to permit rectifications at the fag end of a recruitment exercise which commenced in December 2018. The stipulations contained in the advertisements and notices issued were never assailed by the petitioners prior to participating in the recruitment process. It would be unfair not just to the respondents but to the other selected candidates to now accord them such permission which would necessarily result in the selection process being stalled and derailed. This Court as well as the Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that such a course being tread would be wholly unfair and unwarranted. The Court repels the challenge to the Government Order of 4 December 2020 being contrary to the mandate of Rule 14. It also negatives its challenge on the ground of being discriminatory or unfair.
These petitions shall consequently stand disposed of with liberty to the State respondents to evaluate the case of each of the petitioners before this Court in light of the Government Order dated 4 December 2020. "
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for. This petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 faraz