Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 152 (ALL)

Sunil Kumar Prasad v. State Of U. P.

2010-01-12

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. It appears that on the basis of an advertisement for obtaining the BTC training, petitioner made an application but the same was not considered then the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court being a writ petition No. 49719 of 2009 which was finally disposed of by this Court on 11.9.2009 directing the relevant authority to pass the appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. The relevant authority after considering the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the application submitted has recorded a specific finding that as there was a specific condition in the advertisement for annexing the domicile certificate and petitioner admittedly has not mentioned or annexed the domicile certificate, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as there was no column mentioned in the form issued by the respondents, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to mention the said particular regarding domicile certificate though the same was annexed with the annexures but there was no mention as there was no condition. 3. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has been rebutted by learned Standing Counsel stating therein that column 13 specifically mentions regarding the annexure annexed to the form. Only 10 columns have been mentioned and there is no mention of domicile certificate which is apparent from the order passed by the relevant authority. Therefore, the form submitted by the petitioner was not strictly in compliance with the condition of the advertisement, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the respondents. 4. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and have perused the form as well as the order passed by the respondents. There is no dispute to this effect that there was a specific condition in the advertisement regarding submission of the domicile certificate, but it is well settled in law that condition in the advertisement will always prevail to the conditions mentioned in the form. If the form submitted is not in accordance with the condition of the advisement, it is liable to be rejected. If the form submitted is not in accordance with the condition of the advisement, it is liable to be rejected. Further in Column 13, every relevant documents submitted by the petitioner like High School and Intermediate Mark sheets and other documents has been mentioned but there is no mention of the domicile certificate therefore, submission of the petitioner to this effect that he has annexed the domicile certificate does not appears to be correct. The said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be after thought. 5. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the relevant authority is based on evidence, the form of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby, dismissed. 7. No order is passed as to costs.