Allahabad High Court
Honble High Court Of Judicature At ... vs Kumari Gangotri on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 16 of 2023
Applicant :- Honble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru. Registrar General
Opposite Party :- Kumari Gangotri
Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the review applicant-respondent and learned counsel for opposite party-petitioner.
Learned counsel for review applicant-respondent prays for correction and modification in the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.20662 of 2019; 'Kumari Gangotri Vs. State of U.P. and Others'.
The first correction sought is that instead of 'High Court' word 'Commission' is typed as a typing error. Learned counsel for review applicant-respondent further submits that the six weeks time granted may be modified to four months inasmuch as other selection process are going on which are required to be completed in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for opposite party-petitioner has no objection to both the requests of learned counsel for the review applicant-respondent.
Hence, the review application is allowed.
The order dated 09.01.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.20662 of 2019; 'Kumari Gangotri Vs. State of U.P. and Others' is corrected and modified and after modification the order reads as under:-
"On 05.01.2023, this Court passed the following order:-
"On request of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.2, put up this case on 09.01.2023 in additional cause list amongst top ten cases."
Counsel for Respondent No. 2, Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad informs the Court that he has received written instruction on behalf of the High Court. His instructions are taken on record.
As per the instructions received by him, learned counsel for the High Court states that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and is a female candidate, she has applied for recruitment for a total of 2020 Group 'D' posts in the Civil Courts of Uttar Pradesh, advertised on 31.07.2017. However, she only applied in the 'Scheduled Tribe' Category and left filling out the sub-category of 'Women' for which she is now claiming an appointment. He further informs the Court that there are still some vacant Group 'D' posts left in the Civil Courts.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe person and not so familiar with the technology. She has already provided her gender as female while filling up her online form. He further points out that the petitioner has applied for a Group 'D' post for which there is no requirement of qualification in computer technology.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Both the parties admit that the petitioner is a female candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. As per the cutoff list prepared by the High Court, the cutoff mark for a scheduled tribe-women candidate is 155 marks. The petitioner scored 172 marks as per her result published by the High Court. However, she has not been included among the 'ST-Women' candidates just because she could not select the sub-category of 'women' while filling up her online application form, though she had filled the category 'female'.
Seeing as the petitioner is a woman belonging to the scheduled tribe category and has applied for the Group 'D' post, she may not be expected to be familiar with the intricacies of computer technology. If her candidature is cancelled for such technicalities, it would be a grave injustice to the stated goal of affirmative action. Any bona fide mistake while filling up her application form is to be considered sympathetically and therefore it should be condoned. As per the instruction of the High Court, there are still vacancies available in the Group 'D' posts in Civil Courts.
Looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that respondents would consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on a Group 'D' post in Civil Courts amongst 'ST-Women' quota available at present within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court.
The order passed in this writ petition shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases.
With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed."
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
Arti/-
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
