Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15170 of 2020 Petitioner :- Uttam Mani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein seeks for quashing of the order dated 27.05.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 i.e. the Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P., Lucknow whereby selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of lab technician has been cancelled.
Admitted facts of the matter are that the petitioner had appeared in all stages of examination for selection to the aforesaid post pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2016. The petitioner had applied in the handicapped category and being Scheduled Caste candidate, his candidature was considered in both the said categories. The petitioner had obtained 55 marks in total and 12 marks in the written examination. The last selected candidate in the scheduled caste category had obtained 55 marks and as per the detail given in the order impugned, he had obtained 13 marks in the written examination. As far as the handicapped category is concerned, the last selected candidate had obtained 59.5 marks.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the benefit of Scheduled Caste category has not been accorded to the petitioner and as the petitioner had obtained similar marks to that of the last selected candidate as, the cut off marks in the scheduled caste category is 55, he is eligible for appointment.
The contention is that the respondents have not clarified as to how many candidates had obtained 55 marks in Scheduled Caste category and how the candidature of the petitioner in the said category had been cancelled.
It is, thus, sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assertion in the order impugned that the petitioner had obtained lesser marks than the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Caste category is incorrect.
Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2, the U.P. Sub-ordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow invited attention of the Court to Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group 'C' (Mode and Procedure), Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2015') to submit that in case two candidates are having same marks in total, the candidate having higher marks in the written examination would be given preference.
A careful reading of para '2' of the order impugned clearly indicates that the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Caste category had obtained 55 marks with 13 marks in the written examination. The petitioner having obtained 12 marks in the written examination with total 55 marks was considered in the Scheduled Caste category, but having obtained lesser marks than the last candidate, his candidature was cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has neither gone through the Rules nor has placed the same before the Court but insisted on arguing again and again on the basis of the order impugned to assert that the said order does not given any reference to the Rule relied by learned counsel for the respondent and as such argument of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 may not be believed.
The Court has expressed displeasure on the insistence of learned counsel for the petitioner when he has not gone through the rules pertaining to the recruitment on the post of lab technician. Without going through the rules, he cannot be permitted to assert that the last selected candidate, having obtained 55 marks in total (13 marks in the written examination) in Scheduled Caste category has wrongly been selected or reference in the order impugned of the said fact is wrong.
In view of the facts stated in the order impugned dated 27.5.2020 and Rule 8 of the Rules, 2015, no merit is found in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The challenge to the order cancelling the selection of the petitioner is found devoid of merits and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 P Kesari