General Cutoff - 417.60
Yachee Ex Servicement Dwara Prapt Ank - 217.20
Ex Servicemen Category Cutoff - 204.20
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 63900 of 2012
Petitioner :- Jaypal Singh Bhandari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secretary & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Apurva Hajela
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Jaypal Singh Bhandari is before this Court for direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to rectify and include the roll number of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates as declared in January, 2010 in pursuance of Advertisement No.1 of 2009 and to award the consequential appointment and other benefits to him.
Record in question reflects that the petitioner is resident of District Gautam Budh Nagar. He is an Ex-Serviceman, having served the Indian Army for more than 17 years starting from 24th July, 1985 till 19th November, 2002 from the post of Sepoy to Hawaldar. During the year 2005-06 the petitioner underwent B.Ped Course from Jivaji University, Gwalior and got the first division. An advertisement was published by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad vide Advertisement No.01/2009 seeking applications from the eligible and interested candidates for the post of teachers/training graduates in Intermediate Colleges/High Schools of the State. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and applied for the post of Physical Trainers in the category of Ex-servicemen. An admit card was issued to the petitioner to appear in the written examination to be held on 13.9.2009 at Agra and the petitioner received the said admit card just two days prior on 11.9.2009. The petitioner was shocked to notice that in the said admit card, the category of petitioner was wrongly mentioned as "General" whereas as per application form submitted by him, the petitioner applied in the category of Ex-servicemen. Since the time left with the petitioner to make a formal protest was very less, the petitioner appeared in the written examination on 13.9.2009 and immediately after the said examination, the petitioner had filed an application dated 17.9.2009 that his category should be rectified from General to Ex-servicemen. Thereafter the result was declared in January, 2011 and the petitioner was not shown to be qualified. Thereafter the petitioner had proceeded to apply under the Right to Information Act and as per letter dated 24.9.2012 sent by Public Information Officer, it has been informed that the petitioner was not given the benefit of Ex-servicemen against Advertisement no.1/2009. The petitioner (Roll No.081400981) secured 231.20 marks in the written examination. The cut of marks for the post of Physical Trainers (for Ex-servicemen) was 204.20 marks and the cut of marks of general category for the post of Physical Trainers was 417.60 marks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner had proceeded to apply in the category of Ex-servicemen and neither he had concealed any material nor he had averred any wrong information, then it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue admit card to the petitioner according to such category, and if there was any discrepancy or anomaly that was only due to negligence on the part of the respondents and as such, the entire liability cannot be fastened over the petitioner.
This is also admitted situation that the admit card in question issued by the respondents was received by the petitioner on 11.9.2009 at Gautam Budh Nagar and immediately thereafter he had proceeded to appear in the said examination on 13.9.2009 at Agra. This much is also admitted situation that the petitioner obtained 231.20 marks in the said examination and was not shown to be selected on account of lesser marks in the general category as the cut of marks of general category was 417.60 marks. As per his claim he applied in the Ex-servicemen category for which the cut of marks was 204.20 and as such, the claim of the petitioner is sustainable under the category of Ex-servicemen.
The Court has proceeded to examine the case of the petitioner and find that the respondents had not proceeded to file any detailed counter affidavit giving the parawise reply and in most cursory manner they have proceeded to file counter affidavit, which reads as under:-
"3. That U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad advertised various posts of Assistant Teachers by means of advertisement no.1/2009 including the post of Assistant Teachers in Physical Education.
4. That the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher for Physical Education, hence he was allotted roll no.081400981 and appeared in the written examination. In this regard it is submitted that an admit card was issued to the petitioner showing category in general for Group-1 instead of General Category alongwith Ex-servicemen.
5. That the admit cards to appear in the written examination were sent by the answering respondents much before the written examination which was to be held on 13.9.2009 and after receiving the said admit card the petitioner also appeared in the written examination and secured 231.20 marks in the said written test. Since the claim of petitioner was considered alongwith the members of the General Class, whose cut of merit was 417.60 marks, therefore, his candidature was not accepted for interview in the said category.
6. That after being unsuccessful in the examination, the petitioner has enquired to know his marks in the written test and the cut off in the said category, which was intimated to the petitioner vide dated 24.9.2012 through Public Information Officer, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad.
7. That after written examination the petitioner has sent a letter to the Secretary, Selection Board vide dated 17.9.2009 which is not available in the office of Selection Board, however, it is evident to mention here that the contention raised by the petitioner in application dated 17.9.2009 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned that he received the said admit card two days earlier before the commencement of the written examination and knowing this fact, he did not approach before the Selection Board to get rectification of the said admit card and appeared in the written test which was held on 13.9.2009, thus the petitioner has not initiated to get correction about his admit card wherein the category was not properly mentioned.
8. That it is relevant to mention here that a notification was also made by the answering respondent in the newspaper which have vide circulation mentioning therein that in case there is any mistakes in the admit cares, the same may be rectified by the Selection Board before the commencement of the written test.
9. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above, it is implicit clear that the petitioner was aware of the mistakes in the admit card but instead of making correction by the Selection board, he appeared in the written examination as a candidate of General Category wherein his merit in the written test was lesser than the cut off merit in the said category as such he was not allowed to be interviewed by the Selection Board.
10. That keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the representation filed by the petitioner dated 28.9.2012 is hereby decided."
Even though the counter affidavit was filed in the year 2014, no other inconvenience has been averred whether at this stage, the petitioner could be accorded appointment or not, and as such, the Court is not in a position to ascertain whether all the posts earmarked for the ex-servicemen against Advertisement No.01/2009 have already been filled up, or the subsequent advertisement had taken place or not. Therefore, the said aspect cannot be adjudicated at present.
The Court has perused the record in question and find that in pursuance of Advertisement No.1/2009 the petitioner had proceeded to apply the same in the Ex-servicemen category. The application form itself is appended as Annexure-3 to the petition wherein at page no.25 this much is reflected that the petitioner had proceeded to mark category "Ex-servicemen" at serial no.3 and complete details have been averred in the said form which clearly proceed to make a mention that the petitioner definitely belongs to the said category and as such, he is rightly claiming the benefit of Ex-servicemen. This is not the case of respondents that at any point of time the petitioner had proceeded to conceal any relevant material and has not placed correct record before the authority. Admittedly the petitioner is ex-serviceman and accordingly having all the requisite qualification, has proceeded to apply in pursuance of the Advertisement No.1/2009 and at no point of time, the petitioner has made any concealment of fact or furnished wrong information and as such, his rightful claim cannot be denied in such a casual manner.
In view of aforesaid position, this much is accepted that under the category of Ex-servicemen the petitioner has obtained higher marks than the cut of marks and as such, his claim cannot be denied. This Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner is sustainable.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and in case any vacancy is available in 'Ex-servimen category' against Advertisement No.01/2009, the petitioner may be accorded placement as per his merit.
Order Date :- 13.4.2016
RKP
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC
Yachee Ex Servicement Dwara Prapt Ank - 217.20
Ex Servicemen Category Cutoff - 204.20
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 63900 of 2012
Petitioner :- Jaypal Singh Bhandari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secretary & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Apurva Hajela
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Jaypal Singh Bhandari is before this Court for direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to rectify and include the roll number of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates as declared in January, 2010 in pursuance of Advertisement No.1 of 2009 and to award the consequential appointment and other benefits to him.
Record in question reflects that the petitioner is resident of District Gautam Budh Nagar. He is an Ex-Serviceman, having served the Indian Army for more than 17 years starting from 24th July, 1985 till 19th November, 2002 from the post of Sepoy to Hawaldar. During the year 2005-06 the petitioner underwent B.Ped Course from Jivaji University, Gwalior and got the first division. An advertisement was published by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad vide Advertisement No.01/2009 seeking applications from the eligible and interested candidates for the post of teachers/training graduates in Intermediate Colleges/High Schools of the State. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and applied for the post of Physical Trainers in the category of Ex-servicemen. An admit card was issued to the petitioner to appear in the written examination to be held on 13.9.2009 at Agra and the petitioner received the said admit card just two days prior on 11.9.2009. The petitioner was shocked to notice that in the said admit card, the category of petitioner was wrongly mentioned as "General" whereas as per application form submitted by him, the petitioner applied in the category of Ex-servicemen. Since the time left with the petitioner to make a formal protest was very less, the petitioner appeared in the written examination on 13.9.2009 and immediately after the said examination, the petitioner had filed an application dated 17.9.2009 that his category should be rectified from General to Ex-servicemen. Thereafter the result was declared in January, 2011 and the petitioner was not shown to be qualified. Thereafter the petitioner had proceeded to apply under the Right to Information Act and as per letter dated 24.9.2012 sent by Public Information Officer, it has been informed that the petitioner was not given the benefit of Ex-servicemen against Advertisement no.1/2009. The petitioner (Roll No.081400981) secured 231.20 marks in the written examination. The cut of marks for the post of Physical Trainers (for Ex-servicemen) was 204.20 marks and the cut of marks of general category for the post of Physical Trainers was 417.60 marks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the petitioner had proceeded to apply in the category of Ex-servicemen and neither he had concealed any material nor he had averred any wrong information, then it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue admit card to the petitioner according to such category, and if there was any discrepancy or anomaly that was only due to negligence on the part of the respondents and as such, the entire liability cannot be fastened over the petitioner.
This is also admitted situation that the admit card in question issued by the respondents was received by the petitioner on 11.9.2009 at Gautam Budh Nagar and immediately thereafter he had proceeded to appear in the said examination on 13.9.2009 at Agra. This much is also admitted situation that the petitioner obtained 231.20 marks in the said examination and was not shown to be selected on account of lesser marks in the general category as the cut of marks of general category was 417.60 marks. As per his claim he applied in the Ex-servicemen category for which the cut of marks was 204.20 and as such, the claim of the petitioner is sustainable under the category of Ex-servicemen.
The Court has proceeded to examine the case of the petitioner and find that the respondents had not proceeded to file any detailed counter affidavit giving the parawise reply and in most cursory manner they have proceeded to file counter affidavit, which reads as under:-
"3. That U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad advertised various posts of Assistant Teachers by means of advertisement no.1/2009 including the post of Assistant Teachers in Physical Education.
4. That the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher for Physical Education, hence he was allotted roll no.081400981 and appeared in the written examination. In this regard it is submitted that an admit card was issued to the petitioner showing category in general for Group-1 instead of General Category alongwith Ex-servicemen.
5. That the admit cards to appear in the written examination were sent by the answering respondents much before the written examination which was to be held on 13.9.2009 and after receiving the said admit card the petitioner also appeared in the written examination and secured 231.20 marks in the said written test. Since the claim of petitioner was considered alongwith the members of the General Class, whose cut of merit was 417.60 marks, therefore, his candidature was not accepted for interview in the said category.
6. That after being unsuccessful in the examination, the petitioner has enquired to know his marks in the written test and the cut off in the said category, which was intimated to the petitioner vide dated 24.9.2012 through Public Information Officer, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Allahabad.
7. That after written examination the petitioner has sent a letter to the Secretary, Selection Board vide dated 17.9.2009 which is not available in the office of Selection Board, however, it is evident to mention here that the contention raised by the petitioner in application dated 17.9.2009 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned that he received the said admit card two days earlier before the commencement of the written examination and knowing this fact, he did not approach before the Selection Board to get rectification of the said admit card and appeared in the written test which was held on 13.9.2009, thus the petitioner has not initiated to get correction about his admit card wherein the category was not properly mentioned.
8. That it is relevant to mention here that a notification was also made by the answering respondent in the newspaper which have vide circulation mentioning therein that in case there is any mistakes in the admit cares, the same may be rectified by the Selection Board before the commencement of the written test.
9. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above, it is implicit clear that the petitioner was aware of the mistakes in the admit card but instead of making correction by the Selection board, he appeared in the written examination as a candidate of General Category wherein his merit in the written test was lesser than the cut off merit in the said category as such he was not allowed to be interviewed by the Selection Board.
10. That keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the representation filed by the petitioner dated 28.9.2012 is hereby decided."
Even though the counter affidavit was filed in the year 2014, no other inconvenience has been averred whether at this stage, the petitioner could be accorded appointment or not, and as such, the Court is not in a position to ascertain whether all the posts earmarked for the ex-servicemen against Advertisement No.01/2009 have already been filled up, or the subsequent advertisement had taken place or not. Therefore, the said aspect cannot be adjudicated at present.
The Court has perused the record in question and find that in pursuance of Advertisement No.1/2009 the petitioner had proceeded to apply the same in the Ex-servicemen category. The application form itself is appended as Annexure-3 to the petition wherein at page no.25 this much is reflected that the petitioner had proceeded to mark category "Ex-servicemen" at serial no.3 and complete details have been averred in the said form which clearly proceed to make a mention that the petitioner definitely belongs to the said category and as such, he is rightly claiming the benefit of Ex-servicemen. This is not the case of respondents that at any point of time the petitioner had proceeded to conceal any relevant material and has not placed correct record before the authority. Admittedly the petitioner is ex-serviceman and accordingly having all the requisite qualification, has proceeded to apply in pursuance of the Advertisement No.1/2009 and at no point of time, the petitioner has made any concealment of fact or furnished wrong information and as such, his rightful claim cannot be denied in such a casual manner.
In view of aforesaid position, this much is accepted that under the category of Ex-servicemen the petitioner has obtained higher marks than the cut of marks and as such, his claim cannot be denied. This Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner is sustainable.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority to decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and in case any vacancy is available in 'Ex-servimen category' against Advertisement No.01/2009, the petitioner may be accorded placement as per his merit.
Order Date :- 13.4.2016
RKP
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC