Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12606 of 2021 Petitioner :- Maneesa Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents and Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.
Present petition has been filed with following reliefs;
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the respondents to accord an opportunity to rectify the incorrect entries made by the petitioner in her on line application form of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 submitted before the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Prayagraj relating to detail of the educational qualification of the petitioner related to BTC/ DLEd. and this Hon'ble Court also be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to join her service on the basis of her educational certificate as well as being selected candidate of 69000 post of Assistant Teacher.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to decide and consider the representation dated 19.10.2020 of the petitioner with regard to rectify incorrect entries of the applicant in BTC mark-sheet as well as also decide the representation dated 05.07.2021 of the petitioner with regard to permit the petitioner to join her service as Assistant Teacher in pursuance of selected list of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2019 (69000)."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she has filed application for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination- 2019, but by mistake, she has written her marks 2882 out of 3200 whereas correct marks is 2877 out of 3200. He next submitted that mistake is bonafide, therefore, petitioner is permitted to rectify the same. He next submitted that even candidates, who have obtained lesser marks have been given selection, therefore, petitioner may be given opportunity to correct the application form and she may be given appointment. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by Apex Court in the matter of Archana Chauhan Vs. The State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 3068 of 2020) decided on 2.9.2020.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Shyam Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that a very same issue was before the Apex Court in the matter of Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. The State of U.P. and others [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021 in which petitioner has written excess marks and the Apex Court after considering the same, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 08.04.2021. It is next submitted that similar matter is again before this Court in the matter of Priyanka Patel Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ A No. 5493 of 2021) in which petitioner has again written excess marks causing difference of 0.55%, but relying upon the judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Jyoti Yadav (Supra), this Court has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 19.8.2021. It is also pointed out that judgement of Archana Chauhan (Supra) is based upon peculiar facts and this was also clarify by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Doli Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others: 2021 LawSuit (All) 383, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the legal pronouncement made by the Apex Court, but submitted that petitioner may be given benefit of judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Archana Chauhan (Supra).
I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record as well as judgements relied upon by the parties. Fact of the case is not disputed. The very same issue was before the Apex Court in the matter of Jyoti Yadav (Supra) and after considering the same, Apex Court has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 08.04.2021. Relevant paragraph is being quoted herein below;
"13. The stand of the State is that every candidate was obliged to fill up the relevant entries in the application form correctly and specially those pertaining to the marks obtained by the candidates in various examinations with due care and caution. The information given in the application form would reflect in quality points of the candidates and have a direct bearing on the merit list. That would in turn, not only determine the inter se merit but afford guidance to cater to the choices indicated by the candidates. The declaration which was spelt out in the Guidelines and repeated in the Advertisement, had clearly put every candidate to notice that if there be any mistake in the application form, the candidate could not claim any right to have those mistakes rectified.
14. Wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater than what they actually deserved, according to the Communication dated 05.03.2021, their candidature would stand rejected. However, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at a disadvantage as against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made by said Communication. The reason for treating these two categories of candidates differently cannot thus be called irrational.
In the first case, going by the marks or information given in the application form the candidate would secure undue advantage whereas in the latter category of cases the candidate would actually be at a disadvantage or where the variation could not be attributed to them. The candidates in the latter category have been given a respite from the rigor of the declaration. The classification is clear and precise. Those who could possibly walk away with the undue advantage will continue to be governed by the terms of the declaration, while the other category would be given some relief.
15. Having considered all the rival submissions, in our view, the Communication dated 05.03.2021 made a rational distinction and was designed to achieve a purpose of securing fairness while maintaining the integrity of the entire process. If, at every juncture, any mistakes by the candidates were to be addressed and considered at individual level, the entire process of selection may stand delayed and put to prejudice. In order to have definiteness in the matter, certain norms had to be prescribed and prescription of such stipulations cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational. Every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the Guidelines and the Advertisement.
16. Having found the Communication dated 05.03.2021 to be correct, the cases of the petitioners must be held to be governed fully by the rigors of the said Communication.
17. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in these petitions and no opportunity beyond the confines of the Communication dated 05.03.2021 can be afforded to the petitioners to rectify the mistakes committed by them. We, therefore, reject the submissions and dismiss all these petitions."
Considering the judgement of Apex Court in the matter of Jyoti Yadav (Supra), again this Court in the matter of Priyanka Patel (Supra), dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 19.08.2021. Relevant paragraph is being quoted herein below;
"In the present case, it is the petitioner, who has incorrectly filled in the column pertaining the marks obtained by her in Intermediate and B.Ed. Examination while filling her on-line application form. The said discrepancy has come in knowledge of petitioner at the time of counselling. Admittedly the respondent authority has issued certain clarifications and finally by Communication dated 05.03.2021 has been issued refuting to consider the individual case pertaining to correction in on-line application form and consequentially, the candidature of petitioner has been rejected.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the law laid down in Jyoti Yadav (supra), interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is clearly unwarranted in such matters as it would lead to further complicating the steps presently being taken by the respondents and not brooking a situation where similar complaints and prayers for rectification may come to be made. This Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed."
So far as judgement of Archana Chauhan (Supra) is concerned, that was based upon peculiar facts of the case. Relevant paragraph is being quoted herein below;
"Leaving aside the technicalities whether the point raised by the appellant arises out of the judgement passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 4070 of 2020, the peculiar facts as mentioned above are sufficient to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant."
This matter was also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Doli (Supra) and Division Bench has clarified this fact. Relevant paragraph is being quoted herein below;
"9. The decision of the Apex Court in Archana Chauhan's case (supra) does not lay down as a law that all rectifications of any nature must be allowed. Moreover, in Archana Chauhan's case (supra), the information of which correction was allowed was not in respect of the marks obtained by a candidate but was in respect of an obvious error of adding a zero to the total marks for which the candidate had appeared in the Intermediate examination. Thus, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge rightly observed that the second correction sought would not be covered by the decision in Archana Chauhan's case. For all the reasons mentioned above, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed."
In present case too, earlier petitioner has written higher marks in its application form i.e. 2882 out of 3200 whereas correct marks is 2877 out of 3200 and seeking rectification of the same. Therefore, the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the above noted judgements, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Arvind