Allahabad High Court
Indumati Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10243 of 2021
Petitioner :- Indumati Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Ram Yadav,Sameer Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aakash Rai
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner's claim for appointment was directed to be considered by this Court vide order passed in Writ Petition No.9835 of 2020. Consequential order has been passed by the Board rejecting petitioner's candidature, which is challenged in the present writ petition. Order impugned dated 04.03.2021 records that petitioner in her online application form had marked 'No' against the column of possessing B.Ed./M.Ed. degree while B.Ed. qualification was mandatory.
Reliance is placed upon clause 2 of the instructions as per which the declaration made in the online application was final and the Board has no liberty to make any amendment in it.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to inadvertent error petitioner filled 'No' against the B.Ed. qualification and that she was otherwise permitted to appear in the interview.
Admittedly, petitioner had marked 'No' against the column indicated in the online application form for possessing B.Ed. qualification, which is otherwise mandatory. In its absence the petitioner would be treated ineligible. Since candidates in large numbers were required to be considered, therefore, the authorities have stuck to the declarations made in the online application form. No exception can be taken to the impugned action and the petitioner has herself to blame.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Nagaraj and others vs. State of Karnataka, (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595, wherein the Apex Court observed as under in para 18:
"18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court. In Administrative Law the scope is still wider. Technicalities apart if the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order. Here as explained, the Bench of which one of us (Sahai, J.) was a member did commit an error in placing all the stipendiary graduates in the scale of First Division Assistants due to State's failure to bring correct facts on record. But that obviously cannot stand in the way of the Court correcting its mistake. Such inequitable consequences as have surfaced now due to vague affidavit filed by the State cannot be permitted to continue."
The above observations would not be of any avail to the present petitioner inasmuch as the respondents' act is not vitiated by any technicality or procedural infirmity. The recruitment herein has to be made as per the procedure laid down in the advertisement. It is to be borne in mind that against each vacancy large number of persons have applied and it would be a different task to individually check each and every application in such large scale recruitment. Making of online application and examining the applications on the basis of disclosure made therein is a reasonable process to maintain fairness and transparency in the recruitment process. Candidates while filling online application are expected to be conscious of the consequences of wrong disclosure made in the online application form for which due notice is exhibited in the advertisement itself. Unless such procedure is followed, it would be difficult to maintain consistency on part of the recruiting agency in making large scale recruitment. The observations of the Supreme Court, in such circumstances, would have to be read in the context of recruitment in question. Sympathies in favour of an individual candidate once is pitted against wider public interest of holding fair and transparent examination the later must hold. Observance to procedure cannot be said to be mere technicality. No relief, therefore, can be granted.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021
Ashok Kr.
