Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15067 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sujata Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nandini Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"Issue a writ order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to take into account the marks secured by the petitioner in her High School Certificate as 408 instead of 410 in the ongoing recruitment of 69000 Assistant Teachers for Junior Basic School run by Board of Basic Education in pursuance to Government Order dated 13.05.2020.
Issue a writ order of direction in suitable nature commanding the respondents to correct the mistake of her marks secured in High School certificate as 408 instead of 410 in the application form submitted before the Examination Regulatory Authority for appearing Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2019 as also in the application form for recruitment of 69000 Assistant Teachers within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
Dealing with the issue of a right of candidates to seek corrections in the online application forms for the recruitment exercise in question, this Court in Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others [Writ A No. 11079 of 2020 decided on 14.12.2020] held thus:-
"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.
These petitions shall consequently stand disposed of with liberty to the State respondents to evaluate the case of each of the petitioners before this Court in light of the Government Order dated 4 December 2020. “ Accordingly and for reasons assigned therein, this petition shall stand disposed of on similar terms.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 faraz