Puneet Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6668 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Puneet Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139821
 
Court No. - 4
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11736 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Vinay Kumar Singh Singraur
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., M.N. Singh
 
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
 

1. Instructions furnished by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Avnish Tripathi for respondent No.2-Commission.

3. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Prayagraj (in short 'the Commission') issued advertisement dated 17.12.2024 to conduct the Combined State Engineering Services (General/Special Recruitment) Examination-2024. The examination contains three different stages, i.e. Preliminary Examination, Mains Examination followed by Interview. Preliminary Examination was conducted on 20.04.2025, in which the petitioner alongwith 31639 candidates appeared. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner alongwith 7358 candidates cleared the said examination.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though a notification dated 26.05.2025 was issued by the Commission intimating that 7358 candidates had cleared Preliminary Examination and that a separate notification with regard to holding of Mains Examination would be issued, the petitioner could not see the notification dated 12.06.2025 published in the Dainik Jagran (daily newspaper) whereby 04.07.2025 was notified as the last date for submitting forms for Mains Examination.

5. The petitioner submitted an application dated 22.07.2025 by hand in the office of the Commission and also sent its copy by Registered Post dated 28.07.2025 stating therein that the petitioner forgot to fill the form of Mains Examination and did not see the message regarding the same and when he came to know about the result, he found that last date of submitting application form had passed. A request was made by the petitioner to allow him to fill up the application for the Mains Examination.

6. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Commission to permit the petitioner to fill up online Mains Examination form and permit him to participate in the examinations which are scheduled to be held on 28.09.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no major change in relation to the particulars of candidates who appeared in Preliminary and Mains Examinations, i.e. to say that roll number etc. are same, since the date of Mains Examination is too far, i.e. 28.09.2025, the request made by the petitioner can be entertained by the Commission and no prejudice would be caused either to any candidate or the Commission in accepting the prayer. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments/orders:-

(i). Sadaf Imran vs. U.P. Public Service Commission: 2024(0) Supreme (SC) 874: 2024 (1) LawHerald (SC) 35;

(ii). Interim order dated 18.07.2025 passed in Writ A No. 9808 of 2025 (Anmol Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India and another).

8. Per contra, Shri Tripathi, at the strength of instructions furnished upon him by the Commission, submits that application forms were to be accepted upto 05:00 PM on 04.07.2025 and in compliance of the said timeline, 7180 candidates had submitted the application forms as well as hard copies of the requisite documents. It is further submitted that the application of petitioner was received in the office of the Commission on 22.07.2025 and, therefore, since the examination contemplates well-defined steps in the process, in case the petitioner is permitted to now fill up online application form, it would open floodgates for those who failed to take appropriate steps within the prescribed timelines and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that, admittedly, the petitioner submitted handwritten application on 22.07.2025 in the office of the Commission with a statement that he forgot to fill up the form and did not see the message.

10. The notification dated 26.05.2025 indicates that a separate notification regarding Mains Examination would be published. The petitioner has himself annexed a photostat copy of the relevant page of Dainik Jagran dated 13.06.2025, in which the notification dated 12.06.2025 was published. The Court does not find any such provision in the stipulations relating to the advertisement that separate messages would be sent to the candidates who cleared Preliminary Examination, therefore, if the petitioner woke up from his slumber after more than two weeks when the last date for filling up application form was over, permitting the petitioner at this stage to submit online application form would certainly create a cause of action also for those who did not act diligently as per the instructions contained in the notification and would open floodgates.

11. As far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadar Imran (supra) is concerned, paragraph 5 of the same, reliance on which was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as under:-

"5. This is, however, opposed by the learned counsel for the State who would argue that this may set a wrong precedent and moreover there were 13 candidates in all, including the petitioner, whose candidature was rejected for similar reason i.e., delay in submission of the hard copy of the documents, and if a relief is given to the petitioner similar relief may also be claimed by the rest. We, however, are of the opinion that this apprehension of the learned counsel is not well founded. Firstly, the case of the petitioner is not the same as that of the rest of the candidates. It is the petitioner only who had approached this Court and consequently it was on the strength of an interim order of this Court that the petitioner appeared in the main examination. The remaining candidates did not approach this Court and unlike the petitioner have not appeared in the main examination which is now over. Under these circumstances the case of the petitioner has to be separated from the rest. Secondly, now the petitioner has also successfully cleared the examination."

12. A bare perusal of the afore-quoted paragraph indicates that the facts of the said case were entirely different where candidature of the candidate was rejected, however, at the strength of some interim order, he was permitted to appear in the Mains Examination and when the said examination was over, a dispute in relation to submission of hard copy of requisite documents was raised by the Department. Under such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found the facts peculiar in nature and also observed that since other candidates had not approached the Court and the petitioner had already appeared in the Mains Examination pursuant to the interim order granted in his favour and had also successfully cleared the same, the relief should not be denied to him.

13. Similarly, in Anmol Kumar Gupta (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an interim order dated 18.07.2025, final adjudication is yet to be made. Further, the said order reflects that application was submitted by post within time and the same reached to the Department with delay and, therefore, on the premise that candidate cannot be blamed for the delay caused by the Postal Department, interim order was passed granting permission to the candidate concerned to participate in the Mains Examination provisionally with a stipulation that the result of the candidate shall not be declared without leave of the Court.

14. This Court, in the facts of the present case, is not inclined to accept the grounds raised for permitting the petitioner to fill up online form as the same would not only amount to opening of floodgates for other identically placed candidates but would also confer premium upon those who had not acted diligently pursuant to the notifications pertaining to examinations.

15. This Court is of the view that even if Mains Examination are to be held on 28.09.2025, which is a date after about 40 days from today, the same, in itself, cannot be a ground for granting any relief to the petitioner inasmuch as, the said period is to be utilized for making necessary arrangements for conducting Mains Examination. The entire exercise relating to holding of examination after following step-by-step procedure is within the domain of the U.P. Public Services Commission and this Court cannot rewrite the stipulations contained in the advertisement/notification and grant relief to a person who has approached the Commission after about 18 days when the date notified for submitting online application form had expired.

16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary discretionary powers in favour of the petitioner.

17. The petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.8.2025

Jyotsana