The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition praying to conduct the online common recruitment test in the Hindi language for selection in pursuance of the advertisement dated 06.01.2022 and other similar reliefs.
The court observed that it was not open to the applicants after participating in the selection process to question the result, on being declared unsuccessful.
Brief Facts:
An advertisement was issued by the opposite party No.3/Director Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow for several posts. The petitioners applied for the posts. The petitioners, being found eligible, were called for the online Common Recruitment Test containing multiple choice questions of 100 marks. The CRT was held on 20.06.2022 and the list of marks obtained by the candidates was declared on 21.06.2022. After being unsuccessful in the CRT, the petitioners approached this Court mainly with the prayer that CRT may be conducted in Hindi language and to declare the result based on same.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the CRT has wrongly and illegally been conducted only in the English language in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement for selection. The Rules and the advertisement do not provide the English language as the medium of the test, therefore, the CRT should have been held in bilingual languages, i.e., in Hindi also. The advertisement and admit card were issued in bilingual languages for the said posts. He also submitted that the Diploma essential for the posts in question is also being held in bilingual languages.
He also submitted that the State Government had issued the Uttar Pradesh Competitive Examination (Medium of Written Examination) Rules, 1994, which provides that the questions paper shall be in English in Roman script and Hindi in Devanagari Script. Therefore, the question paper should have been in English as well as in Hindi.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the petitioners have challenged the selection after being unsuccessful; therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that after framing the first statute of the SGPGI in 2011, the Rules and Regulations of the Government are not applicable.
The Counsel argued that CRT is an All India Test and has been conducted in English medium only as per the policy of the Institute. He further submitted that though the advertisement and the admit card were issued in bilingual languages, the syllabus for the posts in question was published in English language only and the petitioners or any candidate ever raised no objection.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that since the advertisement does not provide for any language for CRT, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement is misconceived and not tenable. The syllabus of the selection in question was in English and no objection was raised by the petitioners and nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioners had ever made any request for providing the syllabus in Hindi, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not know the English language.
Further, the Court remarked that if the syllabus was in English language, it can safely be inferred that the question papers would be in English and if the petitioners did not raise any objection at that stage, they cannot say now that the question paper should have been in Hindi also. It was not open to the applicants after participating in the selection process to question the result, on being declared unsuccessful.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds.
Case Title: Uday Singh & Ors. v State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Lko. & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rajnish Kumar
Case no.: WRIT - A No. - 3979 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Avinash Tiwari
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C., Shubham Tripathi
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
