Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13567 of 2020 Petitioner :- Neeta Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Shivendra Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.
The instant petition has been preferred requiring the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner under the handicapped category and declare her successful in the U.P.T.E.T. Examination- 2019. It is the admitted case that the petitioner did not seek benefits as otherwise available and flowing to a handicapped candidate while filling her online application form. The question which however arises is whether she should be permitted to take corrective action at this stage.
Regard must be had to the fact that the grant of permission in a situation like the present cannot be made without the Court considering the likely impact of the issuance of such a direction on the entire selection process. It would necessarily not only place the entire selection process under a cloud of uncertainty, it may also force the respondents to redraw the inter se merit of candidates and revise the select list.
Dealing with an identical question this Court in Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others; [2021 (1) ADJ 85] held thus:
"This was therefore not a case where candidates were either unaware of the sanctity attached to the disclosures made in online applications or were not apprised of the consequences of mistakes and inadvertent errors being incapable of being rectified once the forms were ultimately saved and locked.
The Court while thus upholding the procedure adopted by the respondents also necessarily takes into consideration that the selection process was not one catering to the young and the adolescent who would certainly deserve a degree of latitude. The selection process in question is for the appointment of Assistant Teachers who will be tasked with the obligation and duty to instill in and impress upon minor school going children the virtues of discipline and exactitude.
While the denial of an opportunity to rectify an unwitting or unintentional error may on the face of it appear to be overly inequitable and harsh especially in cases where the mistake may be apparently borne out from the accompanying record, Courts in these situations cannot be unmindful of the mammoth effort and preparation that precede the convening of a public examination in which lakhs participate and compete amongst each other. The present recruitment itself saw 4,09,530 persons competing in the ATRE. However a pall of uncertainty and the veritable sword of Damocles continues to hover over the fate of the 1,46,060 successful candidates. This position of uncertainty cannot be permitted to perpetuate and linger endlessly. It not only causes grave injustice to the selected candidates but more importantly and in most cases negates and undermines public interest- in this case the efficiencies of thousands of primary educational institutions, the education of minor school going children itself hangs in the balance. It is these issues of vital consequences which must weigh and be accorded due consideration.
… It is thus manifest that a whole body of precedent on this oft repeated prayer of rectification in online forms has come to govern the field. The principal considerations which appear to have weighed with the Court in deciding against the petitioners in those matters were the caveats and notes of caution which placed candidates on prior notice of such a plea not being liable to be entertained, the specter of the entire selection process being stalled or even derailed. But Courts laid equal if not far greater emphasis on the need to ensure certainty and closure being accorded to selection proceedings in respect of posts under the State. That is exactly the sentiment voiced in Ran Vijay Singh and Vikesh Kumar Gupta by the Supreme Court.
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."
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds itself unable to issue the writs as prayed for bearing in mind the decision of the Court rendered in Pawan Kumar.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Arun K. Singh/Krishna* (Yashwant Varma, J.)