Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3254 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar v. U. P. P. S. C.

2014-10-31

DILIP GUPTA, SATISH CHANDRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J. The petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 24 April 2014 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. The candidates had to apply online and had been specifically directed to thoroughly read the instructions. The petitioner, who belongs to OBC category, obtained 234 marks as has been shown in the mark sheet. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the cut of marks for general category candidates in Agriculture group is 213, the petitioner who has obtained 234 marks, has not been asked to appear in the main examination in the Agricultural group. 2. Sri M. N. Singh appearing for the respondents has stated that the petitioner was required to specifically mention at serial No.20 in the application form the specific post details with other essential qualifications so that he could be considered for Agricultural group but the petitioner specifically mentioned 'No'. The petitioner was, therefore, considered against the Executive group for which the cut of marks for general category candidate was 275. It is, therefore, his submission that since the petitioner obtained 234 marks, he has not been called to appear in the main examination. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the application form the petitioner specifically stated that he has passed under Graduate Examination in Agriculture and, therefore, even if he had stated 'No' against serial No.20 in the application form he should have been considered for the Agriculture group. 4. We are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The advertisement specifically mentioned that for the post of District Cane Officer, U.P. Agriculture Service Group 'B' the candidate must be a graduate in Agriculture. In the Note contained in the advertisement it was specifically mentioned that in case of special educational qualification posts, the candidate must mention their options clearly and in that condition alone they will be considered for the post bearing special education qualification. The petitioner, in such circumstances should have clearly mentioned that he wanted the Agricultural post, but he did not do so and on the other hand clearly mentioned 'No' against serial No.20. The Commission, therefore, had not treated the petitioner as a candidate for the Agriculture group. The petitioner, in such circumstances should have clearly mentioned that he wanted the Agricultural post, but he did not do so and on the other hand clearly mentioned 'No' against serial No.20. The Commission, therefore, had not treated the petitioner as a candidate for the Agriculture group. The petitioner has obtained lesser marks than the marks obtained by the general category candidate in the Executive group and therefore, has not been called to appear in the main examination. 5. The decision taken by the Commission does not suffer from any illegally, which may call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.