Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar And Another vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 22 January, 2025
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11708
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14156 of 2024
Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sagar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioners for their appointment on the post of Constable towards the vacancies issued through advertisement dated 14.05.2013, issued by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotional Board towards 2312 unfilled vacancies by providing mark of question No.47 to the petitioner No.1 and question No.23 so far as the petitioner No.2 in light of the amendment made in the Act vide notification dated 07.04.2016.
b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.2 to decide the application of the petitioner dated 23.07.2024 within stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. Pursuant to order dated 01.10.2024, learned Standing Counsel has produced instruction dated 04.10.2024, which is taken on record.
4. As per instructions, petitioner No.1, Deepak Kumar has obtained lessor marks than the minimum cut off marks for selection, therefore, he could not be selected. Further, petitioner No.2, Bikunj has obtained equal marks, but he could not be selected under the Tiebreak Rules.
5. Considering the fact that age of one Akhilesh Kumar Yadav i.e 13.08.1987 was more than the age of petitioner No.2 i.e 05.08.1989, therefore, on applying Tiebreak Rules, higher age candidates have been selected.
6. So far as another relief about providing marks in question is concerned, undisputedly advertisement was issued in 2013 and Hon'ble Apex Court after considering this aspect in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.23223 of 2018 (Saurav Yadav & Ors vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors), has directed that nothing further needs to be done in the matter. The relevant part of the judgment is being quoted here:-
" Pursuant to order dated 22.11.2019, affidavit of compliance has been filed on behalf of State of U.P. The affidavit has also given the details of last selected candidates in various categories with other relevant details such as the marks secured by each of those candidates and the categories to which they belong.
In our view, there is full compliance of the directions issued by this Court from time to time and nothing further need be done in the matter.
We, therefore, accept the compliance affidavit and dispose of all these matters. All I.As are disposed of.
Needless to say that candidates who have already been selected and whose names are mentioned in the list appended to the affidavit of compliance shall now be sent for training as and when vacancies are available."
7. Not only this, Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing Civil Appeal No.6860 of 2021 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors vs. Pankaj Kumar), has held that selection process may not be permitted for indefinite time and interference of Court. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment is being quoted here:-
"10. In that background, it is to be noted that another learned Single Judge of the High Court in a similar circumstance had dismissed Writ Petition No.3647 of 2019 filed by one Radha Sharma seeking similar relief and the said order was upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No.903 of 2019. The order of the learned Single Judge was dated 13.05.2019. In any event, though indulgence was shown in the earlier cases, a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a time line and the next recruitment process will also get effected since determination of the number of vacancies will keep fluctuating. The process herein had commenced in the year 2015 and the document verification along with the physical fitness test was held in 2018. Several candidates who were permitted pursuant to the order of the High Court had taken part in early January 2019. Since, sufficient time has elapsed thereafter it would not be appropriate to make an exception in the case of the respondent at this stage as otherwise the trickle would continue.
11. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in their conclusion. The order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.693 (SS) of 2019 and the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.366 of 2019 by the Division Bench are set aside. Consequently, the Writ petition No.693 (SS) of 2019 titled Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors. stands dismissed.
12. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs."
8. This view was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1924 of 2010 (Sankar Mondal vs. The State of West Bengal And Ors.). The relevant part of the judgment is being quoted here:-
" In our view, in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, howsoever, may be the genuineness of the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment. In case of an advertisement dated 1999, the appellant cannot be permitted to plead that he was waiting for seven long years for getting an appointment letter and then woke up to file the O.A. before the State Administrative Tribunal. This itself is a ground to non-suit the appellant."
9. So far as the present case is concerned, it is undisputed that selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement issued in 2013, has already been completed, therefore, interference of the Court, at this belated stage, is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, relief prayed by the petitioners cannot be granted.
11. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2025
Amit
