Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19945 of 2018 Petitioner :- Himanshu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Khare,Hari Om Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities.
Petitioner is aggrieved by his non selection for appointment on the post of Constable in U.P. Police in OBC category, pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2015.
Perusal of the record would go to show that the OBC certificate, details of which referred to in the online application, is of 19th February, 2016, while in terms of the advertisement issued, an OBC candidate had to annex OBC certificate issued between 01.04.2015 and 17.02.2016. It is also stated that unless certificate of this period is annexed in prescribed format, the same shall not be taken note of. The Court is apprised that more than 22 lacs candidates applied for nearly 33000 posts of Constable and the entire process was online, and therefore, the authorities have restricted consideration of candidature only on the basis of disclosure made in the online application itself. Clause 6.4 of the advertisement specifically provides that details furnished in the online application cannot be permitted to be corrected.
Although learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijoroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and another reported 2016(4) SCC 754, but the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit on the strength thereof inasmuch as the Full Bench of this Court in Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (FB) 2017 (5) ADJ 494 has been pleased to examine the judgment of the Apex Court and thereafter hold that the case of Ram Kumar Giroroya (supra) is distinct on the facts and has no applicability in the facts of the present case. The terms of the advertisement are clearly binding. Since the petitioner has failed to produce OBC certificate of the specified period as was mandatorily required in the advertisement, no exception can be taken if petitioner is treated as an unreserved candidate.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Ashok Kr.