Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3447 (ALL)

MOHAMMAD ZUBAIR AHMAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-11-20

DILIP GUPTA, SATISH CHANDRA

body2014
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J. This Special Appeal seeks the quashing of the judgment and order dated 18 September 2014 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant to assail the order dated 25 August 2010 passed by the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Ballia1 as also the consequential order dated 30 August 2010 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia has been dismissed. The Principal of the DIET, by the order dated 25 August 2010, had cancelled the selection of the appellant for Urdu BTC Training Course 2006. The appellant had responded to an advertisement that had been issued on 5 September 2006 for selection of candidates for Two Years' Urdu BTC Training Course 2006. The procedure for making selection was prescribed in the Government Order dated 5 September 2006. It required that out of the three examinations, namely the High School, Intermediate and the Graduation, the appellant should have Urdu as a subject in at least two examinations. It transpires that the appellant had passed the Intermediate Examination from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Kanpur in 1993 securing 475 marks out of 600 marks but since he did not have Urdu as a subject in the Intermediate Examination, he again appeared at the said examination in 1996 with Urdu as one out of the five subjects and secured 216 out of 500 marks. The appellant obtained third division in this examination and passed with grace marks. However, while filling up the application form for selection in the Two Years' Urdu BTC Training Course 2006, the appellant mentioned the aggregate marks of the 1993 Intermediate Examination (475 out of 600) and also mentioned that he had secured 50 marks out of 100 in Urdu. Thus, the appellant wrongly mentioned that his aggregate was 475 out of 600 marks in the Intermediate Examination and that he had secured 50 out of 100 marks in Urdu subject whereas in the examination in which he obtained 50 out of 100 marks in 1996, his aggregate marks were 216 out of 500 marks. When this fact came to the notice of the Authority on verification, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after consideration of his reply, his selection was cancelled. When this fact came to the notice of the Authority on verification, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after consideration of his reply, his selection was cancelled. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no error in the impugned order cancelling the selection of the appellant as he would not have been selected on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by him in 1996 in which year he had passed the Intermediate Examination with Urdu subject. The learned Judge also noticed that he had wrongly mentioned that his aggregate marks were 475 out of 600 marks instead of 216 out of 500 marks. This factual position cannot be denied and has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant but what he contends is that the appellant is eligible in terms of Clause 2(b) of the Government Order dated 5 September 2006. It is not possible to accept this contention. The appellant had made a false declaration in his application form by giving an impression that he had Urdu as a subject in the Intermediate Examination in which he had appeared in 1993 and secured 475 marks out of 600 marks whereas he had appeared in 1996 Intermediate Examination in which he obtained 216 marks out of 500 marks. If the appellant had correctly stated this position, he would not have been selected. The selection of the appellant was made because of the misrepresentation made by the appellant. There is, therefore, no error in the order cancelling his selection. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Date:20.11.2014 SK (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Dr. Satish Chandra, J.) Court No.29 Civil Misc. Application No.377528 of 2014 Inre: Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 955 of 2014 Appellant :- Mohammad Zubair Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of limitation. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned. Date:20.11.2014 SK (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Dr. Satish Chandra, J.) ——————