Allahabad High Court
Sandeepa vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4109 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sandeepa
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep,Ravindra Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
The case of the writ petitioner is that he after clearing the High School examination in the year 2008 followed by Intermediate in the year 2010 and obtaining B.Ed degree from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University Kanpur and further obtaining U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test (T.E.T.) applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. In para 4 of the writ petition which has been averred that the respondents initiated the recruitment drive for appointment of Assistant Teacher being Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019 and the petitioner applied in pursuance thereof and was issued an admit card bearing registration No. 1600143665 and Roll No. 16165129994.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that an admit card was issued to him to appear in the examination on 06.01.2019. Though in para 9 of the writ petition it has been averred that the maximum marks to be obtained was 150 but according to him the petitioner obtained only 89 marks which ought to have been 90 marks, but the said averment is completely missing in the writ petition but according to learned counsel for the petitioner he has the instructions to make a statement orally in the Court itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the writ petitioner is entitled to the benefits which had been granted in the case in Special Appeal Defective No. 343 of 2021 (Abhishek Srivasvata and 14 others Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 25.08.2021. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied upon the second last paragraph of the judgment which reads as under.-
"The exercise aforesaid would not effect in any manner the selection or appointments already made. The benefit would be given to the appellants and the writ petitioners, if they are short of one mark and not otherwise. If any of the litigant till date are short by two marks in the merit, they would not be entitled to any benefit of this judgment."
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the benefits which have been extended to the appellants and the writ petitioners therein are to be extended to the writ petitioner as once the marks are accorded to him in the light of the said judgment that she would clear and qualify.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have argued that first of all the writ petition is enormously barred by delay and laches particularly when the writ petitioner is approaching in the year 2023 after a long span of period when the results already have been declared. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the judgment of Abhishek Srivastava (supra) the words employed "the benefit would be given to the appellants and the writ petitioners if they are short by one marks and not otherwise" itself shows that the said judgment was a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem thus, the said judgment only applied to the writ petitioners and the appellants in the said appeal and not to the non-writ petitioners and non-appellants who in the present case is the petitioner.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had applied for and being appointed as an Assistant Teacher pursuant to the recruitment drive initiated in the year 2019, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was well aware about his marks. It is basically the writ petitioner who is sitting on the fence waiting for the diligent litigant to approach the Court and to obtain the order and then to follow the same. I am afraid that the judgment in the case of Abhishek Srivastava (supra) will be of no aid to the writ petitioner particularly when the said judgment is a judgment in personam not a judgment in rem. The said issue has also been decided by a bench of this Court in the case of in Writ A No. 836 of 2023 (Anuj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another). Moreover the Court finds that there is no valid justification exhibited in the writ petition so as to overcome the hurdle of delay and laches as there is no explanation worth consideration.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
Rajesh
