Allahabad High Court
Vandana vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2901 of 2023
Petitioner :- Vandana
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Singh,Sanjay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.01.2023 whereby an order has been passed cancelling the selection of the petitioner mainly on the allegation that while filling the forms in the online application, the petitioner had disclosed to have 1058 marks whereas in the original marks-sheet total marks obtained by the petitioner was 1057. The said order has been passed in the light of the Government Order dated 05.03.2021 and the letter dated 10.03.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that by entering the wrong forms, which were on account of inadvertence, no advantage has ensued in favour of the petitioner as in any way the petitioner has obtained more marks than the last candidate in the cut-off list and thus, the inadvertent error should not be the basis for denying the appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No(s).378 of 2021 decided on 29.06.2021 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Secretary, Basic Education Board v. Jubeda Bano; 2022(40) LCD 755 and the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.302 of 2020 (Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 22.04.2022, in support of this arguments.
Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 argues that the question with regard to the benefit flowing on account of inadvertence were duly raised and considered by this Court in Special Appeal No. 153 of 2022 (Secretary Basic Education Board and Anr. v. Pratibha Mishra & Ors.) decided on 19.04.2022 and were repelled.
Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is undisputed that while filling the online application form, the petitioner had disclosed the marks obtained by her as 1058 whereas the actual marks obtained by the petitioner was 1057. That being the admitted position, the issue is squarely covered by the clarification issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified the issue after considering the Government Orders to the following effect:
"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."
In view of the law as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
In view thereof, no reason for interference is called for. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
This order has been passed in the presence of Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
nishant
