Allahabad High Court
Aradhana Pandey vs State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Basic ... on 28 July, 2016
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 24
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 17407 of 2016
Petitioner :- Aradhana Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Patel, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 4.
According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being fully eligible and qualified, filled On-line application for Teachers Eligibility Test Examination-2015 [TET] under the Art Group and she was allotted Roll No. 6110100753. It is said that the petitioner is a handicapped lady having 45% disability and as such she applied in handicapped category. In the said examination when the result was declared, the petitioner obtained 85 marks but was declared "not qualified" whereas the cut of merit in the handicapped category was 82.
On inquiry, she came to know that she has not been considered in the handicapped category and as such she has been declared as 'not qualified' in the result. Therefore, she made a representation dated 11.4.2016 to the Controller of Examination-Opposite Party No.5 claiming her consideration in the handicapped category.As no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner under the handicapped category and declare her result.
It has been contended that the petitioner is a handicapped lady and she is fully eligible and qualified candidate for TET training but due to arbitrary and unjustified action of the respondents in declaring the petitioner as not qualified, serious prejudice has been caused to her and it would adversely affect her future career.
On the contrary, State Counsel, on the basis of instructions, has submitted that the petitioner has applied in UP.TET-2015 by submitting On-line application and deposited the requisite fee as was required for a general category candidate. For making any correction in the application form, the general instructions were issued to be strictly followed by the candidate. The correction/amendment in the application was permissible single time except the change of candidate's name, district for which application is made and change of category from general to handicap or vice-versa. Instruction no. 2 of the General Directions provides that in no circumstance, change in the category from general to handicapped category or from handicapped to general category would be accepted.
Elaborating his submission, learned State Counsel submitted that in the On-line application, the petitioner has applied in Female/General/Arts category and shown her home district as Sultanpur. The petitioner has deposited fee as a general category candidate. Therefore, her result was declared as a general category candidate. In the general category, the cut off merit was 90 marks and as such the petitioner, who has secured 85 marks, has been declared as not qualified candidate.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it has been argued that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the General direction for UP-(TET)-2015 shows that apart from point wise general directions, at the top it has a box containing important instructions that any information already given in the Form except the name of the candidate, district and category from general to handicapped or vice-versa, can be altered/corrected only once.
The general directions provide that on entering the screen, a Form containing earlier entries together with column of the Form relating to correction would be visible. However, in any condition, no change/amendment in the candidate's name, district of the candidate, change of category from handicapped to general or from general to handicapped category would be allowed. Point No. 5 of the instructions provides that a candidate may amend his sub-category of handicapped from one sub-category to another sub-category within the three options of handicapped viz. blind, deaf and physical disability. Point No. 6 lays down that on account of same fee structure, the applicant may amend merely his category from general to other backward class and from scheduled caste to scheduled tribe and vice versa. If there is no similarity in the fee, any change from general category/other backward class to scheduled class/scheduled tribe category and vice versa shall not be permitted. In special reservation category viz dependent of freedom fighter and Ex-Soldier (Armed force serviceman) (himself), in case of similarity in application fee, a candidate may amend his category mutually and in other category provided that a candidate is not allowed to change/amend his category to any such category of which application fee is different.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to mention that a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Manohar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.and others (Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013) has held that where an applicant has shown his incompetence or negligence in not even correctly filling up a simple On-line application form for employment, no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble Chief Justice in the case of Smt. Arti Verma vs. State of U.P. and others [ decided on 5.2.2014] took the similar view. In this case the State Government rejected the representation filed by the appellant for correcting the error in the On-line application which was assailed by Smt. Arti Verma before this Court in a Writ petition, but the said writ petition was dismissed. The order dismissing the writ petition was challenged in the aforesaid Special Appeal No. 123 of 2014, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 5.2.2014. While dismissing the Special Appeal, the Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble D.Y. Chandrachud,C.J.[ now Judge of the Apex Court] observed as under:l
?... The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement, which he made On-line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly.?
In the instant case, the petitioner has annexed copy of the On-line application form [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] which shows that the petitioner has applied as a Female/General/Arts category candidate. Point No. 9 and 10 of the application form relates to category and Handicapped special category. At point no. 9, the petitioner has mentioned her category as a 'General' whereas point no.10 which relates to Handicapped special category, the petitioner has left the column blank. Thus it is clear that the petitioner has not applied as a Handicapped category candidate and for this reason, though the petitioner has secured 85 marks, she has been declared 'not qualified' treating her to be a general category candidate. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioner that she has applied in handicapped category is wholly misconceived and cannot be accepted.
In view of the aforesaid facts and legal position, no good ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 28.7.2016
MH/-
