Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 830 (ALL)

Aditya Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2022-05-24

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2022
JUDGMENT : Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.3 of 2022. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the amendment application to add prayer No. (ii-A) and (ii-B) in the prayer clause. 2. As no objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents, this amendment application is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the necessary amendment in the body of the petition within three days. Order on Petition 1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Initially, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "(i) a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to appear in preliminary examination for the post of Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Police/Plantoon Commander P.A.C./Fire Branch (2020-21) between the dates 30.11.2021 to 03.11.2021 at any examination center of Prayagraj by making alternative arrangement for the same. (ii) a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no.2 and 3 to take necessary action for the post of Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Police/Plantoon Commander PAC/Fire Branch (2021-21) after issuance of admit card for the same by making alternative arrangement." 3. Subsequently, by means of an amendment application, which has been allowed by this Court today itself, petitioner has prayed for following relief:- "(ii-A) A writ of certiorari to call for entire records of those candidates whose exam date has admittedly been rescheduled/shifted and quash their result of online written exam conducted by respondent no.2 in furtherance of their notification dated 25.02.2021 amended notification dated 15.06.2021 and notification dated 01.11.2021. (ii-B) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to pay compensation amount of Rs.10 Lacks to petitioner for violating his right of equality provided under Article 16 of Constitution of India (and equal treatment) to appear in online written exam (of U.P. Police Sub-Inspector/Plantoon Commander PAC/Fire Branch) after rescheduled the date like other candidates whose exams date has admittedly been rescheduled." 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Police/Plantoon Commander P.A.C./Fire Branch (2020-21), pursuant to the notification/amendment notification dated 25.02.2021/15.06.2021. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Police/Plantoon Commander P.A.C./Fire Branch (2020-21), pursuant to the notification/amendment notification dated 25.02.2021/15.06.2021. The respondent no.2 issued the schedule for taking primary examination, vide letter dated 01.11.2021 which was to be held between 12.11.2021 to 02.12.2021. 5. As per the instructions given in the notification dated 01.11.2021, petitioner downloaded his admit card, in which the examination date was fixed on 22.11.2021. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner fell ill due to typhoid on 19.11.2021. The petitioner being under the impression that he would be in a position to attend the exams scheduled to be held on 22.11.2021 but after his treatment he was not in position to attend the exams on 22.11.2021, as also that the exams were scheduled to be held for a period from 12.11.2021 to 02.12.2021 in three shifts, thought that he would move an application, requesting to reschedule his examination between that period. The petitioner on the same date i.e. 22.11.2021 send online application on the website of respondent no.2 along with his medical papers with the request to reschedule his exam on any other date on or before 02.12.2021. The respondent no.2 did not pay any attention on the aforesaid application and when the petitioner did not get any response, he moved a representation dated 27.11.2021 through registered post, requesting that the respondents to conduct his online written examination but nothing was done, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause-3 of the notification dated 01.11.2021 provides that in case the examination so scheduled is not taken on the specified date due to technicalities in any of the centres, the examinations so affected will be taken on 03.12.2021. Clause-3 of the aforesaid notification is extracted below:- ^^;fn fdlh rduhd leL;k ds dkj.k fdlh ijh{kk frFkh @ ikyh esa fdlh dsaUnz fo'ks"k ij ijh{kk vk;ksftr ugha gks ldh rks ,sls dsaUnz dh ijh{kk fnukad 03-12-2021 dks vk;ksftr dh tk,xhA** 8. He further submits that Clause-8 of the notification dated 01.011.2021 provides that in case the candidates have any problem/objection in the said online written examination, they could contact the help desk number as provided. He further submits that Clause-8 of the notification dated 01.011.2021 provides that in case the candidates have any problem/objection in the said online written examination, they could contact the help desk number as provided. Clause-8 of the aforesaid notification is extracted below:- ^^vkWuykbu fyf[kr ijh{kk ds laca/k esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ;fn dksà leL;k @ vkiÙrh gks rks gsYiMsLd uaŒ- 022&62337900 ij laidZ dj ldrs gSaA** 9. When the matter was taken up on 02.12.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he had acquired knowledge that the exams of certain candidates were rescheduled, therefore, he moved supplementary affidavit as well as amendment application for bringing on record the necessary facts for proper adjudication of the matter. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not acted according to the condition as mentioned in the notification and have rescheduled the examination of certain candidates who did not appear on the date specified in the admit card. He further submits that the respondents have adopted an arbitrary approach in re-scheduling the exams of some candidates who could not appear on the schedule date of exam for reasons beyond their control. The respondents have acted in unjustified manner in rescheduling the exams of nearly 125 candidates whereas denying the request of the petitioner for the same and have acted in unreasonable manner against the brochure which does not permit rescheduled of the examination in any case. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Clause-2, given in general instructions as provided in Appendix-1 of U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules in which Rule 125 provides:- "(2) if a candidate fails to appear in the examination on the scheduled date and time, then he can give application to the committee formed for conducting the test in concerned district, giving reasons in details for absence and requesting to appear in the examination on some other date. The committee, after considering his application, can decide and may allow him to appear for test on some other date. The candidate will be given only one chance in this regard and if he fails to appear in the examination on rescheduled date and time, he shall be considered unsuccessful. The candidates may give application, before the last date fixed for this test, by the Board. No application will accepted after the last day. The candidate will be given only one chance in this regard and if he fails to appear in the examination on rescheduled date and time, he shall be considered unsuccessful. The candidates may give application, before the last date fixed for this test, by the Board. No application will accepted after the last day. The committee shall inform the Board about all such cases where the date and time of the test has been rescheduled." 12. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid rules, it is the case of the petitioner that as he was ill, not being in a position to appear in the examination scheduled on 22.11.2021, he had moved an online application before the respondents on time i.e. on the same date making a request to reschedule his examination in between the dates provided in the notification but no such opportunity of hearing was given. 13. The respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner while permitting 125 students to appear in the examinations on some other dates, therefore, the petitioner has to be compensated for the same. In support of his submission, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Science and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 389 , wherein it has been held as follows:- "Wherever the court finds that action of the authorities has been arbitrary, contrary to the judgements of this Court and violative of the Rules, regulations and conditions of the prospectus, causing prejudice to the rights of the students, the Court shall award compensation to such students as well as.........." 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in exceptional/peculiar circumstances when there is no fault of the candidate/petitioner and such a person has approached the Court within time, the Court can always interfere in such matters when the legal right of the petitioner is affected for which he has approached the Court within time and the respondents have committed fault in not following the rules, regulations as well principles to be followed in case of selection or admission. In support of his submission, he has also placed reliance upon the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in case of Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs. In support of his submission, he has also placed reliance upon the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in case of Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others [ 2020 (1) ADJ 187 DB] wherein it has been held as follows:- "(i) That in a case where candidate/student has approached the Court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the concerned Court to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. (ii) Under exceptional circumstances, if the Court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fauly only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates....." 15. Thus, on the aforesaid grounds the petitioner is entitled to be granted the relief as prayed. 16. Learned Counsel for the State submits that no candidate has been permitted to appear on some other date than the date as mentioned in the admit card on the ground of individual difficulty. There is no discrimination as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner because while the examination of 125 candidates were rescheduled on the ground that T.E.T. (Teacher Eligibility Test) examination date clashed with the date of exam of Sub-Inspector, therefore, the exam of separate class of candidates has been rescheduled on the ground of the examination of T.E.T. as the same clashed with the date of exam of Sub-Inspector. 17. Learned Counsel for the State further submits that reschedule of the examination is not permitted and if that is allowed, the Examination Regulatory Body will not be able to conclude the selection. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the order dated 18.11.2021, passed in Special Leave Petition No. 6860 of 2021 (State of U.P. & others Vs. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the order dated 18.11.2021, passed in Special Leave Petition No. 6860 of 2021 (State of U.P. & others Vs. Pankaj Kumar) wherein following observations were made:- "recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaning less without a time line and the next recruitment process will also get effect since determination of the number of vacancies for the process will keep fluctuating." 18. With respect to the notification, the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the conditions mentioned in the notification dated 01.11.2021, it has been submitted that the clauses have been misinterpreted. 19. A bare reading of the clauses as specified goes to show that in case of technicalities, the exams will be held on 03.12.2021 and not due to any individual difficulty of the candidates. It is also clear that for any of the problems while appearing in the examination, it was open to the candidates to approach the help desk number as provided and not for request for rescheduling the examination. 20. Lastly, counsel for the state submits that the examinations of such candidates whose date of examination clashed with the examinations of T.E.T. was rescheduled/changed only, that too, on the prior information given by them to the Board, so that the service agency could be able to make necessary arrangement for online written examination on said changed date. He has also brought on record the fact that the U.P.S.C. had also changed the date of provisional education (Teaching Service Examination) 2021 which was scheduled on 12.12.2021 taking into account the examination for the post of Samiksha Adhikari conducted by Allahabad High Court and the said examination was subsequently conducted on 22.12.2021. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the date of online examination was never changed on the ground of illness. 21. In the similar set of facts where candidate, namely, Arun Kumar could not appear in the examination pursuant to the same advertisement due to illness. He approached before Lucknow Bench of this Court by filing Writ No. 27264 (SS) of 2021 and the Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. 22. He approached before Lucknow Bench of this Court by filing Writ No. 27264 (SS) of 2021 and the Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner. 22. This Court is of the opinion that there is no provision of rescheduling the examination on the ground of individual difficulty and certain candidates have been permitted to appear in the examination on another date as the date of the present examination clashed with some other examination, hence, the case of the petitioner does not stand on the ground of being discriminated. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition lacks merits and is accordingly, dismissed.