Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 January, 2023
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On 23.01.2023
Delivered On 27.01.2023
Court No. - 36
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 172 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Applicant-In person and Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Present review application has been filed to review the order dated 7.12.2021 passed by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J, which is presently sitting at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, therefore, present application is placed before this Court.
Earlier petitioner was approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 4888 of 2021 and this Court vide order dated 7.12.2021 has dismissed the the said petition with cost of Rs.5000/- and said order is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State.
The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to his appointment on the post of Excise Constable which was advertised on 30.6.2010 in pursuance to which the petitioner has applied and participated in the selection process including physical test and consequently in the final select list he was not declared to be qualified. Since then he has been making representations to the authorities for his selection. It is submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner belongs to other backward class category, he made a complaint to the State Backward Class Commission, U.P., raising his grievance. The said Commission had required the Excise Commissioner to submit all relevant documents with regard to selection of the petitioner and all the documents were produced before the Commission. In the said record it was found that the petitioner had obtained 61.67 marks while the last selected person in Other Backward Category had obtained 77.5 marks and consequently the petitioner did not meet the selection criteria and was not selected.
The petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present petition basing his claim on the order passed by Backward Class Commission dated 24.11.2020 wherein despite being aware of the fact that the petitioner was lower in merit still a direction was issued to the State Government to appoint the petitioner.
We have perused the order of U.P. State Backward Class Commission dated 24.11.2020 and find the said order to be dehorse the rules and law. The Commission was duly informed by the Excise Commissioner that the petitioner had obtained only 67 marks while the last selected candidate under Other Backward Category has secured 77.5 marks, still insistence was made for production of the hand written note with regard to physical test. Only because the original documents were not produced, without recording any finding with regard to merit of the petitioner, order was passed directing the State to appoint the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any provision under the U.P. State Other Backward Class Commission Act which gave the power to it to pass such an order as has been made in the order dated 24.11.2020. It is observed that the Commission is only a recommendary body where it makes only recommendations to the State Government which are not binding upon the State Government.
Learned State counsel, on other hand, has filed counter affidavit wherein they have informed this Court that the petitioner has earlier approached Lucknow Bench of this Court by filing a writ petition being writ petition No.6692 of 2013 (Shailesh Kumar Shukla and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) where by means of order dated 5.1.2018 this Court had not acceded to the prayer made by the petitioner in which following orders was passed:-
"Heard learned counsel for petitioners who are challenging the order dated 1.5.2013 by which his representation has been rejected. While rejecting the presentation, it is categorically noted that the petitioner got lesser marks to the persons duly selected in the selection.
Learned counsel for petitioners has tried to raise number of discrepancies in the selection process but none of the same was coming to help of petitioners and hence this Court does not find any cause to interfere in the impugned order.
In view of aforesaid, the matter is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 5.1.2018"
It is also noted that in the entire petition, the petitioner has deliberately concealed the factum of approaching this Court on an earlier occasion and his petition has not been allowed while, on the other hand, it has been consigned to record. Once the petitioner had approached this Court then second petition on similar set of facts is not maintainable and consequently this Court is of the considered view that the present petition in light of aforesaid facts, is not maintainable.
It is also noticed that the said recruitment took place in 2010 and after ten years, the direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact of filing earlier petition, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-."
Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Applicant-In person could not demonstrate any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order of this Court dated 7.12.2021 inviting attention of this Court to review the same. He repeatedly submitted that he is victim of corruption in the system of recruitment and he has rewarded more marks in physical test in comparison to other candidates, but the same has been denied by the respondents to include their loved ones.
I have perused the order of this Court dated 7.12.2021 for which review was sought. While dismissing the writ petition, Court has clearly recorded that petitioner had obtained only 67 marks whereas last selected candidate under OBC has secured 77.5 marks. Court has also observed that Other Backward Class Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) had no authority to issue direction for issuance of appointment letter and Commission is only recommendatory body. Not only this, petitioner has also concealed the fact that earlier he has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6692 of 2013 on the similar set of facts, which was also dismissed vide order dated 5.1.2018. Apart from that it is also noticed the recruitment took place in the year 2010 whereas petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 10 years without any proper explanation of delay.
Law is very well settled for the purpose of review that there must have been error of fact or law apparent on the face of record. From perusal of the ground so taken and also argued by the applicant-In Person, I could not find any reason to interfere with the order of this Court dated 7.12.2021.
Review application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.1.2023
Junaid
