Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25925 of 2015 Petitioner :- Pratima Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sharma,U.C. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.D. Yadav,Deo Dayal
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This petition has been preferred for a direction being framed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Science) after completing the process of re-counselling. The petitioner participated in a recruitment exercise initiated by the respondents for appointment of Assistant Teachers in the subject of Science. Upon declaration of results thereof, the name of the petitioner was included in the list of qualified candidates. The petitioner however contends that although she appeared before the respondents for counselling on 23 July 2014, she was not allowed to participate.
Upon directions being issued on this petition, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is disclosed that the petitioner had received 71.06 quality point marks. According to the respondents all those who had secured marks equivalent to 71.06, were called for counselling pursuant to a letter and notice issued on 17 July 2014. It is their case that although various candidates appeared in that counselling process, the petitioner did not participate. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondents have also brought on record the attendance sheet of all candidates who had been called for counselling on that date. It becomes pertinent to note that these assertions as made in the counter affidavit are not controverted by the petitioner.
The allegation that the petitioner appeared on 23 July 2014 and was not permitted to participate in the counselling is itself sworn on the basis of records. In view of the aforesaid disclosures as made by the respondents, no justification exists for issuance of the writs as prayed for.
Consequently, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Arun K. Singh