Nitin Kumar Chauhan vs State Of U.P. Thru. ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 2797 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 23
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10313 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Chauhan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy./Addl.Chief Secy.Energy & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party No.1 and Sri Rajnish Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that since the general marks so given to all the candidates for making appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) have not been provided to the petitioner, therefore, he could not select on the post in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.14 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 13.12.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer/ P.R.O. of the Department, intimating the petitioner that he has obtained 123.75 marks in the written examination and 23 marks in the interview, thereby he has obtained total 146.75 marks.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.6 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 13.03.2019, whereby the petitioner has been given information by the Superintending Engineer/ Appellate Officer under R.T.I. that for two questions general marks have been given.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the petitioner is given general marks for two questions, at least, he would be getting two more marks and in that case he would be getting 148.75 marks, whereas cut off is 147.08 marks. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, he would be declared selected.

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner has only obtained 146.75 marks, as indicated in Annexure No.14 to the writ petition, which is a letter dated 13.12.2018 and the general marks so awarded to every candidates have already been provided to the petitioner and the marks of 146.75 of the petitioner are containing the general marks, therefore, the petitioner has only obtained 146.75 marks, hence, he could not have declared successful candidate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not agreeable with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 for the reason that the petitioner has given him specific instruction, which the petitioner came to know through reliable sources that the general marks was awarded to every candidates, have not been added to the total marks of the petitioner.

List this petition on 25.04.2019 as fresh to enable the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to file short counter affidavit/ counter affidavit.

Since the controversy in issue may very well be adjudicated if the record is seen, therefore, on the next date, the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 shall produce the relevant records.

Order Date :- 11.4.2019

Suresh/

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]