Madhavi vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2481 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 575 of 2020
 

 
Appellant :- Madhavi
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 08.07.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/appellant was dismissed.

It is a case where the petitioner/appellant applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School under Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board. The application was to be submitted online with correct information, as required. The petitioner/appellant submitted application online and after remaining successful in making the application, obtained printout, as was required. It is to make comparison of the entries and if it is found to be in order, then to submit for registration.

The petitioner/appellant had submitted online application and after obtained printout and verifying the details, clicked for registration with a condition that no correction in the application would be permitted thereupon.

The candidature of petitioner/appellant was considered for the post in question but her name could not find place in the merit list. The merit was determined on the basis of the marks in qualifying examination, i.e. high school, intermediate and graduation. The name of appellant did not appear in the merit for the reason that instead of giving total marks obtained in the high school, intermediate and graduation, percentage of marks was given. Since the application was submitted online, the scrutiny was made by applying the technology and as the petitioner/appellant had given percentage of marks instead of secured marks, she could not find place in the merit. The writ petition was, thus, filed to seek correction in the application form. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition referring to the judgments in similar cases. The correction in the application cannot be allowed when candidates were made aware that rectification in the application form would not be permitted.

Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Archana Chauhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No. 3068 of 2020 decided vide judgment dated 02.09.2020.

We have considered the said judgment but find distinguishable facts. In the said case, disclosure of the total value of the marks in the intermediate examination was shown to be 5000 instead of 500, though the candidate described her total secured marks correctly i.e. 362.

Taking aforesaid not to be an error regarding disclosure of her total marks, the appeal was allowed. In fact on a value of 5000 total marks, 362 marks secured was having lesser percentage then the value of 500 marks.

In fact, the result of the selection has been declared after analyzing online application in reference to the disclosures made therein. Whenever technology is applied, the candidate is made aware of the consequence on submission of incorrect information. It was made clear that no correction in the application would be permitted, thus the candidate should ensure filling of the form correctly. As a caution, the candidates were permitted to take the printout after submission of the application form. After verifying the details, to click for registration. The condition in the online form is quoted herein for ready reference-:

"I have done a printout of the online registration form and compared the entries made there with the original documents and found them to be correct and that I fully agree to finally submit/save my registration form (application). After submission/final saving, I shall not be entitled to any opportunity to amend my application."

The petitioner/appellant had taken printout of the online application. She did not make any correction rather sought registration without correction despite disclosure of percentage of marks in the high school, intermediate and graduation instead of total marks. The assessment of the merit was involving the technology because no element of selection test/written test exists in this case.

The permission to correct the application form of one candidate would open the Pandora box of the litigation and even unsettle the selection. The merit list of the selected candidates has already been prepared and if the petitioner/appellant is permitted to correct the entries in application form, similar prayer may be made by all concerns, may be running in hundreds. It would unsettle the entire selection.

The candidates coming in the merit may suffer if they are pushed down comparing the marks of the petitioner/appellant and like others. The benefit of default or lapse committed by the petitioner/appellant cannot be passed on to her more so when it may unsettle the entire result, affecting the candidates who have already shown in the merit.

The judgment of this Court in the case of Writ Petition No. 4798 of 2012, Bharti Vs. State and others is relevant and applicable to the facts of this case.

The same view was taken by this Court even in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and 60 others Vs. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 4070 of 2020 decided by the judgment dated 30.05.2020. The relevant para 20 and 21 of the said judgment are also quoted herein for ready reference-:

"20. The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be human in nature. The petitioners should have read the instructions that were issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to the marks obtained by them in their previous examinations. The contention that this was an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the petitioners, then this would result in a situation where the petitioners would get the benefit of a wrong if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed the petitioners could always turn around and claim that this was a result of a human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. From perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the error/errors committed by the petitioners are neither minor nor are human error/errors.

21. In view of the facts as narrated above as well as the law laid down by the differnt Division Bench of this Court from time to time as well as by the Apex Court, no relief could be granted to the petitioners."

Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Ruksar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 4677 of 2020. It may be true that out of the bunch in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (supra), one appeal was preferred before the Apex Court but we have already discussed the issue in reference to the facts involved therein, viz-a-viz., facts of this case. We are unable to accept the prayer made by the petitioner/appellant.

It is more so when the petitioner/appellant would be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher and if she did not read the instructions carefully to fill the form properly, can she be expected to impart education to the students properly. It is apart from the fact that due to her default, now the sufferance would be to those who have already shown in the merit list, thus, the prayer of the petitioner/appellant is not acceptable.

In the overall facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed affirming the judgment of learned Single Judge.

Order Date :- 18.2.2021

//Nirmal//