Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Dhar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10049 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rakesh Dhar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Anil Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned notice/letter dated 1.5.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2 filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
The petitioner applied for the post of Paid Apprentice. He appeared in the recruitment examination for Uttar Pradesh Civil Court "Category C Clerical Cadre". He applied in "General" category as reflected from page 20 of the paper book. His admit card for Examination, 2014 was also issued in "General" category and under the column of caste category he has been shown as "General". It appears that for one reason or the other the result of the petitioner was not declared, therefore, he filed Writ A No. 30486 of 2015, Rakesh Dhar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of vide order dated 2.1.2019 on the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the result of the petitioner shall be declared. It was further provided that in the event of the petitioner qualifying in the written test follow up action may be taken. The result of the petitioner was declared by the impugned notice dated 1.5.2019 wherein it has been mentioned that since the candidate has secured less than the cut off marks in the General category (i.e. 97.77) hence the candidate has not been selected for the applied post.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a handicapped person and handicapped certificate dated 16.9.1999 has been issued certifying that he is suffering defect in the upper limb by 50%. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that such impugned notice/letter dated 1.5.2019 is bad in law inasmuch as the petitioner had qualified in the written test and in compliance of the order of the writ Court follow up action was to be taken. He submits that the petitioner has obtained 43 marks out of 100 in the written examination and in the present case there is a complete violation of the Disabilities Act in not providing reservation to the petitioner.
Sri Anil Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3 has pointed out that the petitioner has applied in "General" category and his admit card was also issued in "General" category and he never objected to the same. Apart from that after written examination the petitioner appeared in English as well as Hindi typing test and finally secured 42.40 marks out of 150 marks which was less than the general category cut off marks i.e. 97.77.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
The admitted details as given in the application form at page 20 of the paper book are that the petitioner had applied under the General category candidates. It is also not in dispute that the admit card for the Examination, 2014 was issued to the petitioner under General category and the petitioner without any protest had also appeared in the examination in General category. A perusal of admit card for examination Hindi & English Computer Type Test (Test-2) at pages 24 and 25 of the paper book further reflects that in both the typing test the petitioner was issued admit card in General category and he never protested for the same. It is needless to point out that the admit card clearly bears an endorsement by the petitioner that the informations supplied by him are true to his personal knowledge. The same also applies to the application form. It is needless to point out that for incorrectness or fault in the application it is the applicant who is to be held responsible and if it is based on false statement even appointment of a candidate can be cancelled. Further the declaration of result by the impugned notice dated 1.5.2019 clearly reflects that the written examination carries maximum marks 100 wherein the petitioner had secured 43 marks. The English typing test carries maximum marks 25 wherein the petitioner secured only 1.56 marks and in Hindi typing test the maximum marks are 25 wherein the petitioner had secured minus marks i.e. -2.17 and the total marks obtained by the petitioner out of 50 is -0.61 which were to be deducted as per Rules from the marks obtained in the written examination i.e. 43 and therefore, the petitioner finally obtained 42.40 marks out of 150. The cut off marks in General category are admittedly 97.77 marks.
In such circumstances, I find no good ground to entertain the present writ petition.
This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
p.s.
