Allahabad High Court
Rajbanshi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1356 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rajbanshi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav,Archana Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, Shri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4.
With regard to issue raised in this petition, the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 22.4.2022 passed in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Special Appeal Defective No. 302 of 2020 has remitted the matter to the District Basic Education Officer concerned to examine the grievance of the petitioner regarding grant of additional weightage/ marks than what was actually filled by the petitioner, which was less than the mark obtained by the petitioner.
The paragraph nos. 9 to 16 are as follows:-
"9. In the aforesaid case, while upholding the validity of the aforesaid Government Order, it was opined that wherever the mistakes committed by the candidates purportedly gave additional marks or weightage greater that what they actually deserve, according to the Communication dated 05.03.2021, their candidature should be rejected, however, wherever mistakes committed by the candidates actually put them at a disadvantageous position against their original entitlement or the variation could be one attributable to the University or issuing authority, an exception was made. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in respect of the aforesaid two categories in the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 did not find anything to be irrational. Subsequently, the issue was examined in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra) with reference to the same selection process. While referring to the Government Orders dated 04.12.2020 and 05.03.2021, it was opined that wherever a candidate had put himself at a disadvantageous position, his candidature is not to be cancelled but if the candidate had been placed at an advantageous position which is beyond his right to claim, his candidature is to be cancelled. Relevant paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:
"7. We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form.
These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above.
8. It must however be stated here that the authorities are not strictly following the intent of the G.O. and the Circular. For example, the Office Order dated 28.03.2021 issued by the Basic Teacher Education Officer, District Hardoi, shows cancellation of the candidature of one Raghav Sharan Singh at Serial No.4, though the projection of marks by way of mistake by said candidate was to his disadvantage. Logically, said candidate would be entitled to have his candidature considered and reckoned at the disadvantaged level. The record shows that even with such disadvantage, the candidate was entitled to be selected.
9. We have given this illustration only by way of an example. The authorities shall do well to consider every such order issued by them and cause appropriate corrections or modifications in the light of conclusions stated above. "
10. From the facts of the bunch of cases listed before us and as has been pointed by some of the counsels, it is evident that the issue has not been examined by the competent authority in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments which relate to the selection process in question. In fact, in some of the cases, the rejection of the candidature, is prior to the aforesaid judgments.
11. As we find that the issues have not been examined by the competent authority in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments interpreting the Government Orders dated 04.12.2020 and 05.03.2021, the matter needs to be re-examined.
12. While setting aside the impugned orders rejecting the candidature of the candidates on account of the error committed by them, we remit the matter to the authority of the district concerned for re-examination thereof in light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and to take a final decision thereon.
13. It is made clear that candidates, whose names do not find place in the select list dated 12.5.2020, will not get any benefit with the change of marks as their merit position will not be changed for the reason that in case this is allowed to happen at this stage, it will open the entire selection process which is not the spirit of the order passed by this Court.
14. The entire process shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. It is further directed that in case any candidate is found entitled for appointment and is offered appointment on review of his/her case in terms of the aforesaid directions, he/she shall get all the benefits from the date, he/she joins the service
16. The order passed in this bunch of appeals/writ petitions may not be treated to be an order in rem rather it is an order in personam limited to the candidates before the Court who were vigilant enough to place their grievance before the Court."
In view of the above the order dated 22.7.2021 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, mathura is quashed. This petition is disposed directing the Basic Education Officer, Mathura to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and as per Division Bench judgement of this Court within six weeks from today.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022
Atul kr. sri.
