Allahabad High Court
Anshul Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1374 of 2023
Petitioner :- Anshul Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Srivastava,Sarthak Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shresth Pratap Singh under the authority of Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in response to the Advertisement dated 5.12.2018 inviting online applications from the eligible and qualified candidates w.e.f. 6.12.2018 for filling up 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers, applied and appeared in the examination held on 6.1.2019. Petitioner obtained 96 marks out of 150. The qualifying marks in the said examination was 97 out of 150 for General Category. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of the judgment passed in his earlier writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 14375 of 2021 which has been disposed of in terms of the decision in Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021. If the petitioner is extended the benefit of 01 mark he will stand qualified.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Notification dated 6.1.2023 restricting consideration till 25.8.2021 itself is not in accordance with law when following the judgment in Special Appeal Defective No. 343 of 2021 decided on 25.8.2021 in the case of the writ petitioner itself in Writ-A No. 14375 of 2021 (Anshul Kumar versus State of U.P.) the writ petitioner has been extended the benefit of the said judgment if he is short by one mark. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has claimed the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Secretary, Examination Controller Authority, Prayagraj to declare the petitioner as a selected candidates and proceed with the selection process as also for the quashing of the Notification dated 6.1.2023.
This Court vide order dated 7.2.2023 had required the learned Standing Counsel as also learned counsel representing respondent No. 2 to obtain instructions in the matter.
On instructions, learned counsel for the respondent submit that the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of 01 mark as claimed by him. The Notification dated 6.1.2023 had been issued to extend the benefit of the decision of the Division Bench passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 343 of 2021 (Abhishek Srivastava and 14 others versus State of U.P. and others) to certain category of candidates who had preferred writ petitions and special appeal. The benefit of the decision was available to either the appellants in the Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021 or to the petitioners whose writ petition assailing the result and allotment of marks was pending. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021 nor his writ petition was pending on the date the decision in Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021 was passed and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned Standing Counsel as also learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner had filed his writ petition No. 14375 of 2021 on 1.10.2021 which was registered on 15.10.2021 and was decided on 10.11.2021. The filing of the writ petition was subsequent to the decision in Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021 i.e. 25.8.2021. The petitioner it appears was sitting on the fence awaiting the outcome of the special appeal. He filed the writ petition only when the appeal was decided granting limited benefit to the writ petitioners whose writ petitions were pending on the date of the order and to appellants of the special appeal.
It is also submitted that this Court in a bunch of writ petition leading amongst them, being Writ-A No. 836 of 2023 has dealt with the identical issue as involved in the present writ petition and after considering the ratio of the decision rendered in Special Appeal (D) No. 343 of 2021(Abhishek Srivastava and 14 others versus State of U.P. and others) as also in Special Appeal No. 184 of 2022 [Km. Shalini versus State of U.P. through Secretary (Basic Education) & 6 others] decided on 4.5.2022, Special Appeal No. 15 of 2022 (Sandhya Singh versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 21.1.2022, Special Appeal Defective No. 1041 of 2021 (Harikesh Kumar Yadav versus State of U.P. & others) decided on 16.5.2022, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 123 of 2022 (Avneesh Singh & others versus State of U.P. and others) decided on 6.5.2022 has proceeded to hold that the writ petition lacked merit and was liable to be dismissed.
I have gone through the pleadings of the present writ petition and find that the issue involved in the writ petition is identical to the one raised in the bunch of writ petitions leading amongst them, being Writ-A No. 836 of 2023. Following the dictum of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Ravi Prakash
