Allahabad High Court
Surabhi Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Basic ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:361
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10187 of 2023
Petitioner :- Surabhi Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Basic Education ) Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak,Piyush Pathak
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1,2 and 4, Mr. Ranvijay Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.3 and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.5.
Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 24th June, 2021 with further prayer for reinstatement of petitioner as Assistant Teacher along with sanctioning of regular and arrears of salary for the period of January, 2021 and March, 2021.
It has been submitted that earlier advertisement had been issued in the year 2019 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers for 69000 vacant primary teacher recruitment. Petitioner had applied for the same but due to certain confusion with regard to filling up of the online application form, petitioners and other similarly situated persons approached the university for clarification, which however was received only after last date of filling up of online application forms expired.
It is further submitted that due to aforesaid discrepancy, petitioner indicated marks less than what had been obtained by them. Thereafter petitioner was selected for appointment with counselling taking place and petitioner finding place in the merit list. However since due to aforesaid factor, their placement in the merit list was lower than it should have been, petitioner filed writ petition (civil) No. 546 of 2021 before Supreme Court of India which was connected to the leading petition namely writ petition (civil) No. 378 of 2021. The said petitions were thereafter decided by means of judgment and order dated 29th June, 2021 with following directions :-
"7. We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form.
These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above."
It is submitted that thereafter impugned orders have been passed after filing of contempt petitions but in utter disregard of directions issued by the Supreme Court.
It is submitted that similarly situated Deepak Dwivedi and others had filed writ A No. 7450 of 2023, Deepak Dwivedi and others versus State of U.P. and others which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 6th October, 2023 but the said judgment and order was thereafter interfered with in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 931 of 2023 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 8th December, 2023 impliedly setting aside judgment and order dated 6th October, 2023.
It is submitted that division bench in the aforesaid special appeal had issued a direction to the opposite parties to consider case of appellants therein in the light of directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar and others.
The aforesaid facts as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner have been admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties who have also given a specific reply that no special leave petition as yet has been filed against order dated 8th December, 2023 in special appeal. It is also admitted that petitioner would be covered by directions issued in special appeal.
In view of aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 24th June, 2021 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari and the opposite parties are directed to consider case of petitioner in the light of directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of Rahul Kumar versus State of U.P., writ petition (civil) No. 378 of 2021 and by this Court in the case of Secretary, Basic Education Board and others versus Jubeda Bano, Special appeal No. 69 of 2022.
Accordingly petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 3.1.2024
prabhat
