Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1177 (ALL)

Shrikant Giri v. State of U. P.

2016-04-01

V.K.SHUKLA, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Shrikant Giri And 81 are before this Court assailing the validity of the judgement and order dated 4th March, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2014 of 2016 (Srikant Giri and others v. State of U.P. and others) as well as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3174 of 2016 (Sourabh Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others), dismissing the said writ petitions on account of there being no merit in the claim that has been set up by the petitioners. 2. The brief background of the case is that an advertisement dated 15th July, 2007 for the recruitment and selection of U.P. Police Constable (Civil Police) and Constable Provincial Armed Constabulary Direct Recruitment Joint Examination-2011 has been issued and all the petitioners-appellants claim that pursuant thereto they have applied for selection. Subsequent to the same, the said advertisement was subsequently cancelled and a fresh notification was issued on 14.5.2013. A Corrigendum to the said notification was issued on 20.6.2013, to the effect that a candidate shall disclose his preference and if a candidate mentions only one preference and the second and third preferences are not mentioned then he will be considered only against the post for which he has given his preference. It was also mentioned that if there was any contradiction between the preferences given or if no preference is given then the candidate would be considered against the remaining posts. 3. Para 7 of the Corrigendum with regard to application fee mentions that the application fee would be Rs. 200/- but those who had applied against the advertisement of 15.7.2011 for the post of Constable (Civil Police) or Constable (P.A.C.) or both they will not be required to again deposit Rs. 200/-. But those who seek to apply against the post of Constable (Civil Police) or Constable P.A.C. and also Fireman, they will not be granted any exemption from the deposit of Rs. 200/- as application fee and they will have to pay the application fee of Rs. 200/-. 4. 200/-. But those who seek to apply against the post of Constable (Civil Police) or Constable P.A.C. and also Fireman, they will not be granted any exemption from the deposit of Rs. 200/- as application fee and they will have to pay the application fee of Rs. 200/-. 4. Para 8.2 of the Corrigendum further mentions that those candidates who had applied against the advertisement of 15.7.2011 for the post of Constable (Civil Police) or Constable P.A.C. or both and have now applied against the advertisement of 2013 and are over age as on 1.7.2013 shall be granted relaxation in age, but such relaxation in age shall not apply to candidates who had applied against the advertisement of 15.7.2011 and are now seeking to apply against the post of Fireman under the advertisement of 2013. 5. The total number of post sought to be filled up was 35,500 posts of Constable (Civil Police); 4,033 posts of Constable P.A.C. and 2,077 posts of Fireman. The examination of all the three posts was a joint examination and the merit list would be prepared on the basis of the marks secured. All the petitioners-appellants are stated to have applied against the advertisement of 15.7.2011. Appellants no.1 to 35 belonged to OBC category, Appellants no.36 to 83 belonged to Scheduled Caste category and appellants no. 84 to 86 had applied under the unreserved category. The petitioners-appellants were also allotted their roll numbers for participating in the examination. The preliminary examination was held on 15.12.2013, physical test was held in October, 2014 and the main written examination was held on 14.12.2014. All the petitioners-appellants qualified the selection and were issued admit card for purposes of scrutiny of documents and medical examination and after qualifying the same their result was also declared on 16.07.2015. The petitioners-appellants were shown to have been selected against the post of Fireman. 6. Subsequent to the same, it was realised that petitioners-appellants have not at all applied for being considered for the post of Fireman and in this regard, notices have been issued to the petitioners-appellants and same has impelled the petitioners-appellants to be before this Court and this Court after considering the matter has proceeded to turn down the request in question and thus the present Special Appeal has been filed. 7. 7. Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Prabhakar Dwivedi, Advocate submitted with vehemence that in the present case petitioners-appellants have succeeded in making a place for themselves in order of merit and in such a situation and in this background, once petitioners-appellants have proceeded not to indicate their preference for the post of Fireman even then their claim ought to have been considered even in the absence of preference as merit should not be compromised and appointment ought to have been made on merits and as such, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioners-appellants by taking practical and pragmatic view of the matter. 8. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that in the present case, at no point of time, petitioners-appellants ever gave option for being appointed as Fireman and at no point of time, they have deposited Rs. 200/- as application fee for undertaking examination in question for the post of Fireman and in view of this, once petitioners-appellants have not at all applied for the post of Fireman then on its face value, their names have wrongly been shown in the list of selected candidates for the post of Fireman and once such a situation has been corrected, then no interference is required to be made. 9. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging is that petitioners-appellants had applied against earlier advertisement/notification dated 15th July, 2011 and had also applied against the advertisement dated 14th May, 2013. A Corrigendum was issued on 20th May, 2013 wherein a candidate was obligated to disclose his preference and in case a candidate mentions only one preference and the second and third preferences are not mentioned then he would be considered only against the post for which he has given his preference. It was also mentioned that if there was any contradiction between the preferences given or if no preference is given then the candidate would be considered against the remaining posts. Paragraph 7 of the Corrigendum dealt with application fee that was required to be deposited for being considered for the post of Fireman. It was also mentioned that if there was any contradiction between the preferences given or if no preference is given then the candidate would be considered against the remaining posts. Paragraph 7 of the Corrigendum dealt with application fee that was required to be deposited for being considered for the post of Fireman. Paragraph 8.2 of the Corrigendum further mentioned that those candidates who have ever applied against the advertisement dated 15.07.2011 for the post of Constable (Civil Police) or Constable P.A.C. or both and have now applied against the advertisement of 2013 and are over age as on 1.7.2013 shall be granted relaxation in age, but such relaxation in age shall not apply to candidates who had applied against the advertisement of 15.7.2011 and are now seeking to apply against the post of Fireman under the advertisement of 2013. 10. The post of Fireman, it is reflected, has been dealt with in altogether different manner. The total 35,000 posts of Constable (Civil Police), 4033 posts of Constable P.A.C. and 2077 posts of Fireman were sought to be filled up by direct recruitment and it is true that examination that has been held, was a joint examination and merit was prepared on the basis of marks secured but select list was to contain names of eligible candidates qua the respective posts qua which they have proceeded to apply. Petitioners-appellants are claiming that they could have been selected against the post of Fireman but the fact of the matter is that they have never ever applied for the post of Fireman and at no point of time, petitioners-appellants had ever proceeded to deposit fee for being appointed as Fireman. Petitioners-appellants have never ever disclosed that they should be considered for the remaining post also. Even none of the candidates, who are before us, have ever applied against the post of Fireman and in view of this, once they have never applied against the post of Fireman nor given any preference against the same and they have never paid Rupee Two Hundred as requisite application fee, then petitioners-appellants cannot claim their appointment for the post of Fireman, in view of this, we have no occasion to interfere with the order impugned and the Special Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.