Allahabad High Court
Monika Bhati vs State Of U.P. & Others on 12 October, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 37
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1016 of 2008
Appellant :- Monika Bhati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar (Sharma)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Dhar Sahai,Yatindra
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar (Sharma), learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal questions the correctness of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's claim for quashing the order dated 13th November, 2007 passed by the Director of Education rejecting her representation for giving appointment as an Assistant Teacher on the strength of special B.T.C. 2004 training has been rejected.
The learned Single Judge after traversing the facts came to the conclusion that the very application form of the appellant was not received and available, and that she had been successful in getting training utilizing a similar name of another selected candidate. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition after recording a finding, that the conclusion drawn by the Director of Education in the impugned order was correct and was based on a proper appraisal of facts on record.
At the very outset, we may refer to the findings recorded by the Director of Education in the order that was impugned before the learned Single Judge where it has been categorically stated that one Monika Bhati D/o Jagdish Singh Bhati was a successful candidate under the general category and her application form was entertained against control number- 2100431. The entry in the records of the said form of the daughter of Jagdish Singh Bhati referred to her correct parentage and further that she was a candidate of the general category with a different date of birth.
Since the name of the appellant is identical therefore her name was erroneously transmitted by the Regional Level Enquiry Committee, on the strength whereof the concerned institution issued the list containing the name of the appellant. It is undisputed that the parentage of the appellant is different and she is the daughter of Jagan Singh Bhati with a different date of birth. It is also undisputed that the appellant is of the other backward category whereas the above mentioned candidate who had been selected was of the general category.
It is no doubt true that the respondents do not dispute the fact that the appellant had obtained higher quality point marks as against the last candidate of the other backward category, but at the same time their stand is that the appellant had not applied and her application form was not received or available before the last cut-off date of applications which is 15th March, 2004. As a matter of fact no application at all was received as stated in the affidavit of the respondent.
In order to meet this stand of the respondents the appellant came up with a case that her application form had been received and it was on the strength thereof that the Regional Level Committee had evaluated the grievance of the appellant and had forwarded the name for being included in the list of training for 2004, Special B.T.C. Session. In order to substantiate this claim the appellant herself has filed the receipt of the deposit that was to be made for the purpose of entertaining the application form. A photostat copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.-1 to the appeal and which records the date as 2nd June, 2004. On the same date the speed post receipt is also stated to have been issued as against the said application form dispatched by the appellant.
In our considered opinion these very documents of admission having allegedly dispatched the application form on 2nd June, 2004, which is obviously after the last cut-off date of 15th March, 2004, establishes beyond doubt that the appellant has not even applied before the last cut of date prescribed.
Secondly, there is no evidence to the effect that the said envelop which had been dispatched did actually contain the application form.
Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was the said application form which was assessed and this is the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit both before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court.
We have perused the affidavits as well as the order of the Director of Education and we do not find any such admission on the part of the respondents of having received the application form. As a matter of fact, the respondents have taken a stand that even assuming that the application form had been dispatched on 2nd June, 2004, no such application had been received in the office.
The earlier Division Bench that had heard this matter, had passed orders summoning the records of the case. The records have been produced before us today. We have permitted learned counsel for the appellant to peruse the said record who has done the same. Learned counsel has been unable to point out any such material available on the record so as to establish the receipt of the application form of the appellant or the original application form being available on record in the entire file.
Apart from this, there is no such evidence which may indicate the receipt of any such application form prior to 15th March, 2004. In the wake of the aforesaid facts that have been brought on record and on the records that have been produced before us and perused by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the application form of the appellant having been received by the office has not been established.
In such circumstances, the impugned judgement does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for any interference.
The question is as to what would be the status of the training already received by the appellant on account of her admission in the institution. We leave this question open without declaring the training certificate of the appellant to be invalid and without prejudice to her rights to claim any employment on the strength of such certificate on the peculiar facts of this case inasmuch as what we find is that the appellant has successfully completed the training and her results have been declared.
Consequently, the appellant cannot be put to any disadvantage on that count and it shall be open to her to avail of any such benefit which may be available to her under law.
The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 12.10.2017
Israr
