Petitioner is permitted to implead Jay Singh, son of Shri Ramgopal, as respondent no. 3, during the course of the day.
The original record of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad, (in short, the Selection Board), has been examined by the Court today and this Court finds that the Selection Board has been making interpolations in the original record as and when it so desired. This Court further finds that respondent no. 3, namely, Jay Singh, had submitted his application for TGT (Mathematics) in response to advertisement no. 1 of 2009. He had enclosed his B.Ed. marks-sheet. This marks-sheet contains signature of no authority, whatsoever, of the University. Yet, he was permitted to sit in the written examination. After he was successful therein, he was called for the interview. It may be recorded that the B.Ed. marks-sheet filed along with the application mentions the name of the candidate as 'JAI SINGH', while the name of the petitioner, in the application form, in the High School and Intermediate examinations marks-sheets and certificates, was spelt was 'JAI SINGH'. Respondent no. 3 was issued interview letter dated 3.6.2010, which contained specific recital that he will appear for the interview along with his original marks-sheets and the certificates. It was specifically required that the original marks-sheets of all the examinations should be produced at the time of the interview.
Rrespondent no. 3 appeared for the interview before the Selection Board. A verification form of the documents was prepared on 5.7.2010, which contained a note that the original marks-sheet produced by the candidate has been issued on 6.5.2010 and, therefore, a decision may be taken qua his eligibility.
It may be recorded that the last date of submission for application in response to the advertisement was 20.2.2009; while the date of the written examination was 30.8.2009. It is, therefore, clear that the marks-sheet, which was produced by the candidate at the time of the interview was issued subsequent not only to the last date of making of the application, but also to the date of written examination. It is in this background that there is an endorsement in the following word: 'anarha', which has been endorsed as 'seen' by an officer of the Selection Board on 5.7.2010.
There are three other endorsements - two in red ink and one in black ink. These endorsements have been scribbled in such a manner that it is not decipherable as to what was written therein. It is also not known that when in the verification form prepared at the time of the interview the candidate was shown as 'anarha' how he was permitted to participate in the interview.
It appears that the result of the selection was declared for the first time on 24.9.2010 and the name of respondent no. 3 was not included in the select panel, while the petitioner was included therein. This select panel was later on cancelled, and the second panel of successful candidates was notified. This second panel was also cancelled, as admitted in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Selection Board today before this Court. A third panel has been prepared. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the total marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examinations and the interview, together, were 288, which was cut off merit within the OBC category. It is stated that the petitioner was lowest in the merit. In paragraph 7 it is stated that Jay Singh was placed at serial no. 9 in the merit list but he was not held eligible because he had submitted the B.Ed. marks-sheet dated 6.5.2010.
The dates of the preparation of the first select panel and its cancellation, the dates of the preparation of the second select panel and its cancellation and the date of preparation of the third select panel have not been brought on record by the Secretary.
In paragraph 8 it is stated that respondent no. 3 submitted an application before the Chairman/Secretary of the Selection Board on 23.9.2010 and it was stated that the marks-sheet as was issued in his favour on 2.2.2009 by the University, wrongly records the spelling of his name. Therefore, respondent no. 3 submitted an application for correction before the University. The corrected marks-shete was recieved by him on 6.5.2010. The verification letter of the Registrar of the Bhimrao Ambedkar University records that the result of the B.Ed. examinations, 2006, was declared on 20.2.2009.
It is, therefore, borne out from the record that no marks-sheet could have been issued in favour of respondent on 2.2.2009, but the Selection Board will not look into that aspect of the matter. On what basis the Selection Board has proceeded to accept the application of respondent no. 3, made on 1.12.2010, after two select panels have been notified and cancelled, is not known. It is on the basis of a subsequent application of respondent no. 3, filed along with the corrected marks-sheet, the Selection Board has dislodged the petitioner from the merit list and respondent no.; 3, Jaya Singh, has been inducted.
In the light of the above, the Chairman must answer, through his personal affidavit, the following queries:
(a) once there was a discrepancy in the name of respondent no. 3, Jay Singh, vis-a-vis that disclosed in the marks-sheet filed along with the application, how was he permitted to appear in the written examinations;
(b) if at the time of the interview while verifying his originals it was found that the original marks-sheet of B.Ed. was issued subsequent to the last date of submission of the application, how was he interviewed;
(c) who made the interpolations on the verification form and what was originally written, which has been scribbled out; and,
(d) lastly, how on the application made by respondent no. 3, Jay Singh, in the month of December, 2010, before the Chairman/Secretary of the Selection Board; he has been included in the final (third) select panel. It may also be explained that when, according to the certificate of the University itself, the result of the B.Ed. examinations was declared on 10.2.2009, how could respondent no. 3 file a marks-sheet, which is alleged to have been issued on 2.2.2009, i.e. 7 days prior to the declaration of the result.
It appears something has gone wrong with the Selection Board. However, further orders shall be issued after the Chairman of the Selection Board files affidavit by the next date of listing. It is made clear that in the affidavit of the Chairman, the dates of preparation of the first, second and third select panels as well the dates of cancellation of the first and second select panels shall be disclosed specifically, along with the notings in the office record, if any, in that regard.
Let the matter come up again as unlisted on 23.4.12.
Order Date :- 9.4.2012 sks-grade iv