Allahabad High Court
Constable Vinod Kumar Singh ... vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 September, 2012
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44325 of 2012
Petitioner :- Constable Vinod Kumar Singh (P.No.952090210) & Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Satya Prakash Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
The petitioners, who are Constable, appeared in the ranker examination for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. However, their result has been withheld on the allegations of having used the mobile phone during the examination.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that according to the instruction Form-13, if any candidate was found with mobile phone, the same was liable to be seized and the Center Superintendent was required to fill up requisite form and put his signature thereon and since during the examination period no objectionable material including the mobile phone was found from the possession of the petitioners and neither form 13 has been filed up for any alleged use of any objectionable material including the mobile phone. It is further submitted that after the examination was over on the basis of false and frivolous complaint, some enquiry is alleged to be conducted regarding the use of mobile phone during examination period by the petitioners and on that basis their result has wrongly and illegally been withheld and they have not been sent for training.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 08.05.2012 rendered in writ petition no. 56812 of 2011 wherein in identical circumstances, the order passed by the U. P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board disqualifying the petitioner therein was quashed on the ground that merely because four calls were registered from the mobile phone during the period of examination does not mean that the same was being used in the examination hall in view of the allegations made that mobile was not caught in the examination nor the Invigilator made any complaint.
However, in the present case, it appears that after withholding the result of the petitioners, the enquiry is pending and it has not been brought to logical end.
Since the training has already started as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit.
Interest of justice would stand served by disposing of this petition by directing the respondent no. 2, U. P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioners within a period of ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Sending of the petitioners for training shall depend upon the decision so taken by the respondent no. 2.
Order Date :- 21.9.2012
Dcs
