Surendra Yadav vs Union Of India And 4 Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 739 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 37
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14126 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Surendra Yadav
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R. B. Tripathi,R.R. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,S.C.,Saurabh Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Srivastava for the respondent-Railways.

The petitioner has come up praying for a certiorari to quash the impugned orders i.e. Annexures no. 6,7 and 9 to the writ petition and for a mandamus that the respondents may provide a second opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the Aptitude Test in terms of the Circular dated 30.8.2013.

The petitioner sought the benefit of appointment on compassionate basis under the LARGESS scheme.

The petitioner appeared in the written test but he could not succeed in the first aptitude test. This obviously was in relation to his claim that was then governed under the conditions of 2011 against which the petitioner's candidature had to be considered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that as a matter of fact only applications had been invited but the results having been declared in 2014 the applicability of the circular on providing an opportunity for a second aptitude test would arise only after the examination results are known. He, therefore, submits that it is only after the declaration of the result that the petitioner had been unsuccessful in the first aptitude test, that the cause for appearing in the second aptitude test arose. Therefore, the Circular dated 39.8.2013 would be applicable. He, therefore, contends that denial of this opportunity is erroneous and hence the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

Sri Sameer Srivastava submits that the circular in clause 3 itself recites that the same shall be applicable in respect of the recruitment cycle to occur in future and is further qualified with a clear sentence to the effect that the past cycle of recruitment will be governed by the earlier instructions. In such a situation this availability of the opportunity of a second aptitude test would not be applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner's recruitment cycle was a past cycle.

We have considered the submissions raised and what we find is that firstly there is no challenge raised to the Circular dated 30.8.2013, consequently clause 3 of the circular remains intact and the same is reproduced herein under:

"3- These instruction are applicable from July-December, 2013 retirement /recruitment cycle onwards only. The past cycle will be governed by the earlier instructions."

A perusal thereof leaves no room for doubt, nor there is any ambiguity so as to construe its applicability in respect of the past cycle for recruitment. Consequently, contentions on behalf of respondents has to be accepted. The petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of the second aptitude test as his claim is of the cycle that had commenced prior to the issuance of the aforesaid circular.

The writ petition is accordingly Dismissed.

Order Date :- 16.5.2017

Om.

(Daya Shankar Tripathi, J.)( Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.)