Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2864 (ALL)

Km. Alka Pal v. State of U. P.

2016-08-20

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to permit her to correct her online application form mentioning 71.05% marks in place of 63.83% marks in her High School Examination and call her for medical test according to her cut off marks. The petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (Female) in the U.P. Police Constable Direct Recruitment-2015 Examination. She submitted her online form mentioning her High School percentage as 63.83%. According to her, it should be 71.05% as mentioned in her High School mark sheet. Learned Standing Counsel submits that once the application form is filled online and submitted, the same is locked and correction thereafter is not permissible. Even otherwise, if the petitioner is permitted to make such correction her marks would substantially increase which will effect the entire selection. The petitioner has submitted her online form mentioning 63.83% marks in the High School and now she wants the same to be corrected to read as 71.05%. Such correction is not permissible as once the application form is submitted ONLINE, the same get locked and therefore no change/correction is permissible. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.123 of 2014, Smt. Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P. And Others held as under: "Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed. Moreover, in the present case, the appointment was of a contractual nature for a period of eleven months. Hence, considering the matter from any perspective, the learned Single Judge was not in error in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed" Another Division Bench, also of this Court in Special Appeal No.834 of 2013, Ram Manohar Yadav Vs. Hence, considering the matter from any perspective, the learned Single Judge was not in error in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed" Another Division Bench, also of this Court in Special Appeal No.834 of 2013, Ram Manohar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Others has held as under: "If prospective teacher can not even correctly fill up the simple on line application form for his employment, it is obvious what he is going to teach if appointed. There are certain decisions cited on this issue. But none of them deal with this aspect whether under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India such incompetent persons should be allowed to play with the future of the next generation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner/appellant should wait till he attains sufficient maturity and learns to be more careful in filling up the applications for jobs. The appeal is therefore, dismissed." In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.