Court No. - 36
Reserved on : 06.07.2021 Delivered on : 19.08.2021 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5493 of 2021 Petitioner :- Priyanka Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Sr. Advocate (Shri Ashok Khare) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shantanu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and 5.
The instant writ petition has been preferred inter-alia with following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing para 2(1) of the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 issued by State Government (Annexure no.10).
(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith grant appointment order to the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School of district Gorakhpur on the basis of her selection and participation in counselling, within a period to be specified by this Court.
(c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School of district Gorakhpur and to pay the petitioner her regular monthly salary on the said post regularly every month."
The State Government has notified Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2019 for filling up 69,000 posts of Assistant Teachers. Being fully eligible, the petitioner has applied and examination was held on 06.01.2019. The result was declared on 12.05.2020, wherein, the petitioner was qualified having secured 121 marks and she was allotted district Gorakhpur. In the select list, the name of the petitioner has found place at serial no.43. The counselling took place in between 02.12.2020 and 04.12.2020 before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gorakhpur. During the course of counselling, the petitioner realized that there was certain discrepancy in her on-line application form, wherein, she has mentioned 277 instead of 227 qua to her intermediate marks and similarly for B.Ed. instead of 283 marks, 238 marks was mentioned.
In order to rectify above discrepancies, the State Government had issued two Government Orders dated 04.12.2020, annexed as Annexure 7 and 8 to the writ petition. Subsequent to it, the Director General, School Education clarified various contingencies enumerated therein. Further the State Government had also issued a clarification dated 05.03.2021 and consequently, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate submitted that said mistake may be taken as inadvertent human error in filling upon-line application form and there is no malafide intention of the petitioner while filling the aforesaid columns in on-line application form. There is hardly difference of 0.55 marks in aggregate as petitioner has secured 71.99 marks, whereas, after taking into account the correct marks aggregate would be 71.44 marks. He submits that the Communication dated 05.03.2021 has been passed in an arbitrary exercise of power. The paragraph 2(1) of the said Government Order does not permit consideration of individual case as to whether any material difference has been cast upon or not and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that issue, as has been raised in this petition, has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021, decided on 8.4.2021. Dealing with the same issue, this Court in Writ A no.7602/2020 (Vinod Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others) by order dated 05.11.2020 has dismissed the writ petition following ratio laid down in Writ A no.8697/2020 (Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another). In this backdrop, he submits that facts of the present case is squarely covered by the adjudication made by the Apex Court in Jyoti Yadav (supra) and as such, there is no ground to issue the writs as prayed for.
For ready reference, paragraph 2(1) of the communication dated 05.03.2021 is being extracted as under:-
“2- समि ति" की संस्"ुति" मि)नांक 13.12.2020 जो आपको शासन के उपरोक्त पत्र मि)नांक 15.01.2021 द्वारा प्रेमि8" मिकया गया था के क्र ें जिजन मि"न्)ओं पर न्याय मि%भाग ए%ं कार्मि क मि%भाग से अभिभ " प्राप्त मिकया जाना था, उक्त के सम्"न्ध ें न्याय मि%भाग ए%ं कार्मि क मि%भाग के परा श. के आलोक ें मिनम्नानुसार काय.%ाही मिकये जाने का मिनर्ण.य लिलया गया हैः-
(1) समि ति" की संस्"ुति" के मि"न्)ु - 1, प्राप्तांक अतिधक के सं"ंध ें- जिजन अभ्यर्थिथयों द्वारा अपने आ%े)न पत्र ें उनके पास उपलब्ध %ैध प्र ार्ण – पत्र / अंकपत्रों के आधार पर अतिधक प्राप्तांक अंमिक" मिकये गये थे "था उनके अंकपत्रों / प्र ार्णपत्रों के सं"ंध ें स्क्रू टनी/ पुन .ल्यांकन / "ैंक पेपर ें अर्जिज" अंक अथ%ा अन्य मिकसी आधार पर प्राप्तांको ें मि%श्वमि%द्यालय / मिनग .न संस्था द्वारा स्%यं परिर%".न मिकया गया है "था सं"ंतिध" प्र ार्ण पत्र आ%े)न पत्र परिू र" करने के पश्चा" मिनग." मिकया गया , "ो ऐसे अभ्यर्थिथयों के अंकों ें परिर%".न होने / त्रुमिटपर्ण. आ%)ने -पत्र भरने के लिलए सं"ंतिध" अभ्यथE को जिजम् े)ार नही ाना जा सक"ा , क्योंमिक "त्स य सं"ंतिध" अभ्यथE के पास आ%े)न पत्र ें अंमिक" सूचनाओं सं"ंधी ही प्र ार्ण – पत्र / अंक पत्र उपलब्ध थे। अ"ः ऐसे अभ्यथE यमि) सं"ंतिध" जनप) ें अपने %ग. ें जनप) ें अऩ्तिK" चयमिन" अभ्यथE के गुर्णांक से अतिधक गुर्णांकधारी हैं "ो ऐसे अभ्यर्थिथयों क मिनयमिु क्त पत्र मिनग." कर मि)या जाये। यमि) सं"ंतिध" अभ्यथE का %ास्"मि%क गुर्णांक जनप) ें सं"ंतिध" %ग. ें अऩ्तिन्" चयमिन" अभ्यथE के गर्णांक से अतिधक है "ो ऐसे अभ्यथE का प्रस्"ा% भिशक्षा मिन)ेशक, "ेजिसक के ाध्य से शासन को उपलब्ध कराया जाये। शासन द्वारा मि)ये गये मिन)Nश के क्र ें काय.%ाही की जायेगी। जहां पर अभ्यथE के द्वारा स्%यं मि"ना मिकसी अभिभलेखीय आधार के %ास्"मि%क प्राप्तांक से अतिधक अंक अथ%ा क पर्ण जाय।”
ाPक अंमिक" मिकया गया है, उनके चयन/ अभ्यथ.न को मिनरस्" कर मि)या In Jyoti Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered and found the communication dated 05.03.2021 to be correct, therefore, 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. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of order dated 08.04.2021 are extracted as under:-
"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."
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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicants alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.08.2021 A. Pandey