Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Katiyar vs State Of U.P. Through Secy.Animal ... on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2259 of 2011
Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Katiyar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy.Animal Husbandry Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Singh,Km.Vishwa Mohini,Ramesh Pandey,Vimal Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abdul Rashid,Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauha,M.Ahsan Faridi,Manushresth Misra,Sandeep Tewari,Shailesh Chandra Tiwary,Vinay Prakash Tiwari
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan for respondent Nos.7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 30.
By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to consider the petitioner's appointment on the post of Computer cum Investigator against remaining vacancies of computer cum Investigator with effect from 07.2.2005 by which other candidates have been appointed which is contained as Annexure No. 11 with all such consequential benefits and also to provide the benefit of reservation in accordance to The U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1994 and relevant Government Orders issued from time to time.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Rule 6 of the Pashupalan Sankhyikiya Seva Niyamavali, 1981 (herein after referred as Seva Niyamavali, which is violative of Article 16(4) of Constitution and contrary to the provision of The U.P. Public Service (Reservation for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1994 and relevant Government Orders which is contained as Annexure No. 8.
(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned selection list dated 31.1.2005 and appointments made on the posts of Computer cum Investigator on 07.2.2005 which is contained as Annexure No. 9 and 11 after calling the entire records.
(iv) To issue any other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of petitioner. And;
(v). To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner against the opposite parties."
Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the private respondents has raised preliminary objection that writ petition has been filed after delay of six years however, the laches in filing the writ petition have not been explained. It has been further stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner participated in the selection and after being unsuccessful he has challenged the same on frivolous grounds. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors. reported in [(2007) 8 SCC 100] and Dhananjay Malik & Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in [(2008) 4 SCC 171]. It has been submitted that writ petitioner herein participated in selection process without any demur hence he is stopped from complaining that the selection process was not correct. The petitioner could have challenged the selection process and the advertisement if he was satisfied that it was not in accordance with rules however, after participating in the selection and becoming unsuccessful, it is not open for such candidate to challenge the selection. This Court has noted that in the merit list the petitioner has got only 25.60 marks petitioner belongs to OBC category. In the OBC category, the cut-off marks is 47.25. Petitioner has failed in the selection. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has wrongly shown the marks of the other candidates. He submits that he has drawn attention of the court towards para 12 of the counter affidavit which show that Sri Vijendra kumar has secured 40 marks, Sri Surendra Singh has secured 42.20 marks, Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra has secured 45 marks and Manoj Kumar secured 46.20 marks.
On due consideration to the submissions advanced and perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has filed this writ petition admittedly after delay of six years without there being any explanation of the delay coupled with the fact that in view of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner himself has participated in the selection and failed therefore, he has no locus to challenge the selection.
In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches and also on merits.
Order Date :- 28.3.2023
Saurabh Yadav/-
