Allahabad High Court
Rohit Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 10 October, 2018
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 740 of 2018
Appellant :- Rohit Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar Pandey,Ashok Kumar Tripathy
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018
Cause shown is sufficient.
Delay in filing the application is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
The appeal shall be treated to be within time and the office shall give a regular number to the same.
Order on appeal
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appeal questions the correctness of the judgment dated 17th July, 2018 on the ground that the rules applicable have been incorrectly construed by the learned Single Judge, and consequently, a wrong conclusion has been arrived at. The second ground is that admittedly the appellant had obtained 88 marks which was the cut off marks of the last selected candidate but according to the appellant no preference could have been given to the said candidate merely because he had obtained lesser marks in the written examination than the last selected candidate. It is also urged by the learned counsel that the appellant had obtained higher marks in the interview. In the above circumstances, neither the rules have been construed appropriately nor there is any justification for giving preferential rights to the candidates who have obtained higher marks in the written examination to be placed above in merit to those who have obtained lesser marks.
We have perused Rule 8 (2) (iv) of the Uttar Pradesh District Recruitment to Group 'C" Posts (Mode and Procedure)Rules, 2015 referred to in the impugned judgment itself. The same is extracted hereinunder for ready reference:-
"(iv) The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by each candidate at the written examination and interview and recommend such number of candidates as they consider fit for appointment. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the name of the candidate obtaining higher marks in the written examination shall be placed higher in the list. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the written examination also, the name of the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher in the list. The Commission shall forward the list to the appointing authority."
The vires of the said rules was not under challenge. Learned counsel had based his writ petition on the ground that since selections had to be made on the basis of interview, therefore the aforesaid criteria cannot be pressed into service.
The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted because the 2015 Rules which are applicable are duly notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the said rules will prevail. The preference given to those who have obtained higher marks in the written examination for being called for interview is neither arbitrary or irrational nor the said rule has been questioned even otherwise as indicated above.
Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha rightly submitted that the appellant cannot be permitted now to take a U-turn and challenge the terms and conditions of the preparation of the select list once he himself participated in the written examinations.
We do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
Order Date :- 10.10.2018
M. ARIF
