Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7939 of 2021 Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List revised. None is present for the petitioner to press the writ petition.
When the matter was taken up on 20.7.2021, the counsel for the petitioner was also not present.
Heard Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in support of his submission has placed reliance to the Apex Court judgement and order dated 8th April 2021 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021 (Jyoti Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. and others) alongwith connected matter decided on 8.4.2021 wherein the Circular dated 5.3.2021 has been approved by the Apex Court.
Issue as has been raised in this petition has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Yadav (supra), wherein their Lorships in paragraph 13 to 17 have observed 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."
Facts of this case are squarely covered by the adjudication made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.
Writ petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Jaswant