Pooja Thapaliyal And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3591 UK

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                 Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1165 of 2021


Pooja Thapaliyal and another                              .......... Petitioners


                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                      ............ Respondents



Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent
nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Pankaj Purohit and Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocates for respondent no.3.
Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kurban Ali and Ms.
Lubna Jahan, Advocates for respondent no.4.


                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Petitioners responded to an advertisement dated 05.02.2021, issued by the respondent no.3, the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (for short, "UKSSSC") for their participation in the State level recruitment on Group 'C' posts. The examination was to be conducted online (Computer based) along with offline examination. The respondent no.3, UKSSSC invited expression of interest from the agencies to conduct the examination and the respondent no.4, the National Stock Exchange for Information and Technology Ltd. (for short, "NSEIT") was given the task of conducting examination.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.4, NSEIT had also conducted examination in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, where due to irregularities having been found in terms of non- observance of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), the examinations were cancelled. Not only this, according to the petition, in fact, Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, after inquiry, decided not to

conduct examination in future by the respondent no.4, NSEIT and blacklisted it. In view of the facts, according to the petitioners, they made representations to the respondent no.3, UKSSSC and others. But, no action has been taken. Hence, petitioners seek indulgence of this Court, directing the respondent no.3, UKSSSC not to conduct the examination, which is scheduled between 12th and 14th September, 2021 and to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the respondent no.4, NSEIT.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that one of the conditions of expression of interest was that the participant agency should never have been blacklisted. It is argued that the respondent no.4, NSEIT conducted various examinations in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, in which, irregularities were committed, SOP was not followed, which resulted into cancellation of those examinations. Not only this, he argued that the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, after conducting an inquiry, decided not to continue with the respondent No.4, NSEIT, in future examination and blacklisted it. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

5. This case is taken up today for admission. At the time of hearing, Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent no.4, NSEIT. He would submit that the respondent No.4, NSEIT, has never been blacklisted. They have ever conducted examination in a very fair manner. Mere apprehension, cannot be a ground to entertain any writ petition; mere reports in the newspapers may not be basis seeking indulgence of this Court in the matters like examination; the examination is scheduled for 12.09.2021, therefore, entire machinery has been geared-up to conduct the examination; after a long period, such examinations for appointment to the public employment are being conducted and if, any indulgence is made, it

would have much adverse effect on the future of those candidates, who are to appear in the examination. Learned senior counsel also assures the Court that, in fact, the respondent No.4, NSEIT has taken all the adequate precautions to ensure that the examination is conducted in a much fair manner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, UKSSSC would submit that, in fact, based on newspaper reports on mere apprehension, the instant petition is filed, which is not entertainable. He would submit that, in fact, the petitioners are misrepresenting and trying to sabotage the examination process which is being conducted by the respondent no.3, UKSSSC. In fact, the respondent no.3, UKSSSC had to publish a Press Communique on 03.09.2021. In addition, to it, according to learned counsel, the respondent no.3, UKSSSC has sought clarification from the respondent no.4, NSEIT about the allegations. But, the respondent no.4, NSEIT has categorically informed it to the respondent no.3, UKSSSC that they had never been blacklisted.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also added that in view of the representations, which the petitioners had made, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.3, UKSSSC to get verification of the facts from the State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, but it was not done. Clarification, if any, sought from the respondent no.4, NSEIT, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is not sufficient in such cases to verify it.

8. It is not a case that when the expression of interest were invited, the respondent no.4, NSEIT was then blacklisted. Petitioners have apprehension in their mind that perhaps tomorrow, this examination may not be fair and there might be any irregularities while conducting this examination through the respondent no.4, NSEIT. What is its basis? In so far as blacklisting of the respondent no.4, NSEIT, from any State is concerned, there is no document as such, to reveal it. Of-course, there are some press release, they may not prompt at this stage, so that this Court may act on the basis that the respondent

no.4, NSEIT has, in fact, been blacklisted for some irregularities committed by it. On behalf of the respondent no.3, UKSSSC, it is argued that the respondent no.4, NSEIT has given a clarification that they have never been blacklisted. The respondent no.4, NSEIT is also before us. They informed that they have never been blacklisted for any examination.

9. Even for the sake of presumption, it is assumed that the respondent no.4, NSEIT has been blacklisted by some State in regard to some recruitment process undertaken by it, does it mean that this Court should restrain the respondent no.3, UKSSSC from conducting the examination through the respondent no.4, NSEIT. It may not be done. The writ petition is based on the apprehension. At this stage when the examination is scheduled from 12.09.2021, this Court is of the view that at this stage, no interference is warranted. This petition is totally devoid of merits and it deserves dismissal at the stage of admission itself.

10. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.09.2021 Sanjay