Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13386 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dushyant Ragav And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The petitioners, 17 in number, seek to challenge the select list finalized by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow and declared on 21.5.2018, on the ground that they have wrongly been excluded from the zone of consideration for the post advertised under the advertisement notification dated 29.12.2015.
It is contended that the petitioners belong to different categories. They were short listed having qualified in every stage of the selection. They were called for document verification by the respondent Board in the year 2016 on different dates.
The petitioners appeared in the office of the respondent Board on the dates given to them but they were all excluded on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. Their High School and Intermediate Examination certificates and mark-sheets have been rejected on the ground that they pass the said examinations from an unrecognized Board.
On a pointed query made by this Court as to why the petitioners did not raise any dispute for a period of two years when their candidature were rejected during the course of document verification in the year 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the petitioners were not informed about this fact rather they were again called in the year 2018 for document verification process alongwith other similarly situated candidates.
Reference has been made to paragraph '18' of the writ petition to assert that the petitioners were called upon for document verification after the selection process was resumed with the dismissal of the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 28.3.2018, challenging the selection.
Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, disputes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with the assertion that the select list was finalized after completing document verification process in the year 2016 itself, in view of the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 25.5.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 3336 of 2016. This Court while passing the said interim order staying only the declaration of the result, categorically directed the respondent Board to proceed with the selection and prepare the final result.
It is not disputed by the petitioner that the result have been finalized in the year 2016 itself. The averment in paragraph '18' of the writ petition that the petitioners were again called for document verification in the year 2018, after dismissal of the writ petition are not substantiated from any material on record and, therefore, do not inspire confidence of the Court.
However, on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, it is noteworthy that 17 petitioners have completed their High School and Intermediate Examinations from the as Central Board of Education, Ajmer, New Delhi.
Submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the said Board had been de-recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examinations U.P. vide notification dated 5.3.2014, published in the Official Gazette dated 8.3.2014. Since all other petitioners had completed their High School and Intermediate Examination prior to the date of derecognition which is 8.3.2014 and, as such, their candidature could not have been cancelled by the Board. The examinations passed by them having been granted recognition by the Board of High School and Intermediate U.P. at that point of time, would not be treated invalid examinations by subsequent act of derecognition. .
Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, disputes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with the assertion that Intermediate (10+2) examinations conducted by the Central Board of Education, Ajmer, New Delhi had never been recognized within the State of U.P. and the notification dated 5.3.2014 substantiates the said fact.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The notification dated 5.3.2014 (gazetted on 8.3.2014) consist of two columns. The unamended Regulation 17(7) of Regulations as contained in Chapter XII framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, with regard to the list of examination to which equivalence was earlier granted by the U.P. Board, is narrated in the left column of the said notification.
A careful perusal thereof indicates that the Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, New Delhi has never been granted equivalence by the Board of High School and Intermediate U.P., Allahabad. List of the examinations to which equivalence was granted does not include the Board in question.
In so far as Clause (jha) of the left hand column of the table is concerned, the same refers to the equivalence granted to the Senior Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Education Ajmer, New Delhi (at serial no.56 of the said table), with the High Schools examinations conducted by the U.P. Board.
In view thereof, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Intermediate Examinations undertaken by the petitioners from the Central Board of Education, Ajmer, New Delhi was duly recognized and granted equivalence in the State of U.P. is found incorrect.
For both the above noted reasons, this Court does not found any justification to interfere in the final result prepared by the respondent Board at the instance of the petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.5.2018 AK Pandey