HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 32 AFR Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29636 of 2015 Petitioner :- Anchit Gupta Respondent :- Vice Chancellor Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur Univ. & 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Divakar Rai Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- B.D. Pandey Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.
We have heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey holding brief of Sri B.D. Pandey for Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur.
The petitioner applied for Combined Pre-Medical Test Examination (hereinafter referred to as "CPMT"), 2015 conducted by Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. The petitioner contends that the admission application form was filled up online pursuant to which the petitioner received an E-mail on 08.04.2015 at 5.15 P.M. indicating that the first step of registration has been successfully completed, pursuant to which a password no. 31467736 was generated on 08.04.2015 at 5.15 P.M. Subsequently, a second password no. 74780306 was generated on the same day, i.e., on 08.05.2015 at 5.17 P.M. Based on the second password, the petitioner filled up his personal details in the requisite form, which was duly accepted on 08.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the fee on 11.04.2015. According to the petitioner, on 13.05.2015, the petitioner has received an E-mail from the respondents that the number on his application is "10113271". On the same day, the status of the petitioner's application was indicated as "completed". The petitioner thereafter tried to download the admit card, which could not be done and an information was given, namely: "Rejection Notice: mismatched/missing information in application as well as Declaration form-not provided within stipulated time despite repetitive requests through SMS and e-mails from us."
The petitioner thereafter tried to make an enquiry from the University and learnt that his declaration form was incomplete and, consequently, the admit card could not be generated. The petitioner has, consequently, filed the present writ petition.
When the writ petition was entertained we had directed Sri B.D. Pandey to seek instructions, and based on the instructions, so received, we passed an interim order dated 22.5.2015 directing the respondent to file a detailed counter affidavit. In the said order, as an interim measure, we had directed the petitioner to appear in CPMT Examination of Uttar Pradesh 2015 and further directed the University to issue an admit card to the petitioner.
The petitioner has appeared in the examination as per our interim order and her answer sheet has been kept in a sealed cover. The University authorities while permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination has also taken a declaration form.
The only stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the application form of the petitioner was rejected because the scanned declaration form which the petitioner had submitted online along with an application form was a blurred copy as a result it could not be inferred as to which candidate was appearing in the examination.
According to the learned counsel for the University, the photograph, fingerprints of the candidate on the declaration form becomes the basis in identifying the candidate in the examination hall and also at the time of counselling/admission and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondent, this declaration form is a very essential and an important document without which cases of forgery, impersonation could not be detected. According to the learned counsel, this declaration form is one of the piece of the evidence to identify the candidate who has appeared in the examination.
The counter affidavit further reveals that after the form was submit the application forms of the candidates was scrutinised and it was found that the petitioner's declaration form was blurred and, accordingly, a message was sent on her registered e-mail address and also on the registered mobile number intimating the petitioner that her application form is incomplete due to the blurred declaration form and requested the candidate to remove the defect. This e-mail and SMS message was sent from 2.5.2015 to 6.5.2015. Since the defect was not removed, the petitioner's application was rejected on 17.5.2015 when the petitioner was trying to upload the admit card.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the procedure given in the brochure as well as the steps indicated while filling the application form online is that when a candidate opens the requisite link, the first thing which the candidate is required to do is take out a copy of the declaration form and have it duly filled it, namely, annexe a photograph and fingerprints and after filling the declaration form, personal details have to be filled up. Thereafter a password is generated which is sent on the registered e-mail address and, based on this password, the application form is generated, which the candidate is required to fill and deposit the fees. While submitting the application form, the candidate is then required to upload the scanned copy of the declaration form and thereafter press the "submit" button. Upon submission of the application along with the declaration form, if it is successfully done, the respondents issues an e-mail indicating successfully uploading of the application form by providing a number of the application form. This process has been completed by the petitioner and upon the successful uploading of the petitioner's application form along with the declaration form, the petitioner received an e-mail on 13.5.2015 indicating the number of the application form as 10113271. From this, it is clear and gives an indication to the candidate that her form has been successfully uploaded.
The respondents in their counter affidavit admit and concede that the application of the petitioner was successfully uploaded but contends that upon scrutiny of the application forms, the declaration form was found to be defective and, accordingly, e-mail and SMS messages were sent from 2.5.2015 to 6.5.2015. Since the defect was not removed the application form was rejected.
We find this to be strange that if declaration form was blurred it means that the application form uploaded by the petitioner, was defective and, therefore, incomplete. If it was incomplete, the SMS/e-mail should not have been sent by the respondent on 13.5.2015 providing the number of the application form. When the number of the application form is generated and given to the petitioner it impliedly means that the form has been successfully uploaded and that there is no defect in his application or that the application is incomplete.
Consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's form was incorrect. Even otherwise, the defect if any, was curable. Once the respondents themselves sent an e-mail to cure the defect and as per interim order when the petitioner was permitted to sit in the examination a fresh declaration form was taken which the petitioner has submitted, therefore, the defect in the declaration form stood cured on or before the time when the petitioner sat in the examination.
In the light of the aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to examine the answer sheet of the petitioner and declare the results.
Order Date :- 27.5.2015 Puspendra (Amar Singh Chauhan,J.) (Tarun Agarwala,J.)