Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2507 (ALL)

Avantika Shukla v. State Of Up

2024-12-11

AJAY BHANOT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ajay Bhanot, J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel assisted by Sri Krishna Dutt Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the impugned order the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher has been invalidated. 3. The petitioner had applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher. In her application form she filled her marks obtained as 1174/1474. In fact her correct marks as recorded in her educational testimonials are 1174/1475. The relevant portion of the government order dated 05.03.2021 dealing with the discrepancies of this nature contemplates as follows: 4. The candidature of the petitioner was accordingly invalidated on the footing that she had incorrectly filled her marks in the examination form which was in the teeth of the examination guidelines provided in the government order dated 05.03.2021. The said circular does not provide for rectification of the aforesaid orders and discrepancies in the application form. 5. The issue of incorrect filling up of the application form and the consequences thereof arose for consideration before the learned Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013 (Ram Manohar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 others) , decided on 30.05.2013 wherein it has been held: "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....." 6. Similarly the Division of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014 (Smt. Arti Verma V. State of U.P. And 2 others decided on 05.02.2014) while examining the invalidation of candidature resulting from incorrect filling up of the form laid down the proposition of law: "In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. Similarly the Division of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014 (Smt. Arti Verma V. State of U.P. And 2 others decided on 05.02.2014) while examining the invalidation of candidature resulting from incorrect filling up of the form laid down the proposition of law: "In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. 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." 7. The same line of reasoning was adopted by this Court while upholding cancellation of candidature for wrong filling up of the application form in Writ-A No. 4070 of 2020 (Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and 60 others Vs State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 30.05.2020 by expounding thus: "20. The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be human in nature. The petitioners should have read the instructions that were issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to the marks obtained by them in their previous examinations. The contention that this was an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted. The petitioners should have read the instructions that were issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to the marks obtained by them in their previous examinations. The contention that this was an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the petitioners, then this would result in a situation where the petitioners would get the benefit of a wrong if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed the petitioners could always turn around and claim that this was a result of a human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. From perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the error/errors committed by the petitioners are neither minor nor are human error/errors." 8. Further the Court in Writ-A No. 4087 of 2020 (Ramhari Gurjar Vs State of U.P. and 2 others) (decided on 11.06.2020) when faced with the issue of incorrect entries in application form which resulted in rejection of the candidature held thus: "10. In Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) also prayer was for granting an opportunity to rectify the incorrect entries made by the petitioners in their online application form of ATRE-2019. It was further prayed that respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for selection on the basis of original education testimonials. After considering various Hon'ble Division Bench and Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments rendered in the cases of Km. Archana Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2012 (3) ADJ 219 , Km. Richa Pandey V. Examination Regulatory Authority and Another decided on 18.02.2014, Ram Manohar Yadav V. State of U.P. And 3 others decided on 30.05.2013, Arti Verma V. State of U.P. And 2 others , Kanchan Bala & 172 Ors. V. State of U.P. & 4 Ors., Jai Karan Singh and 52 others Vs. State of U.P. And 4 others and Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 952 , the petition was dismissed. I do not wish to burden my judgment by quoting or refering to them again. However, paragraphs 18 and 20 of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) are quoted as under:- "18. State of U.P. And 4 others and Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 952 , the petition was dismissed. I do not wish to burden my judgment by quoting or refering to them again. However, paragraphs 18 and 20 of Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) are quoted as under:- "18. In so far as the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the same will not help the petitioners since in large number of cases observations were duly made by different Division Benches of this Court that in case any mistake was committed by the candidates during the course of examination, the writ court will not interfere in the matter. 20. The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be human in nature. The petitioners should have read the instructions that were issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to the marks obtained by them in their previous examinations. The contention that this was an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the petitioners, then this would result in a situation where the petitioners would get the benefit of a wrong if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed the petitioners could always turn around and claim that this was a result of a human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. From perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the error/errors committed by the petitioners are neither minor nor are human error/errors." (emphasis supplied) 9. In Ruksar Khan and State of U.P. and 3 others and other companion writ petitions this Court examined the consequences of liberally permitting rectification of incorrect application forms in a recruitment process and held: "62. In matters of public affairs, like the process of recruitment to posts under the State, there has to be an element of certainty. The process of recruitment must proceed on the foundation of firm and reliable data. A public recruitment cannot be permitted to be a shaky affair with shifting positions of aspirants about their candidature. If this were to be permitted, it would introduce uncertainties in the recruitment process leading to its embarrassment. The process of recruitment must proceed on the foundation of firm and reliable data. A public recruitment cannot be permitted to be a shaky affair with shifting positions of aspirants about their candidature. If this were to be permitted, it would introduce uncertainties in the recruitment process leading to its embarrassment. It has also to be borne in mind that where a number of posts have to be filled up, expeditious conclusion of the recruitment process requires an unhassled and unhindered course to be run. It is bearing, thus, objectives all legitimate, in mind that the candidates have been held bound down by the entries they make in the application forms. This cannot be permitted to be set at naught by falling back upon the rather out of place consideration for ''human error'. There is an added feature about those cases where mistake is an omission to claim a reservation category." 10. The matter regarding correct filling up of application forms/answer sheets was also posed before the Supreme Court in Karnataka Public Service Commission and others Vs B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others, (1992) 2 SCC 206 wherein wrong entries in the application form in disregard to instructions issued by the Commission were seen in the context of transparency and public confidence in a recruitment process and the law was propounded as under: “Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates or he is charged with misconduct or misbehavior. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bonafide and honest mistake did not arise. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bonafide and honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even, if not provided did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary. It was not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true." 11. The aforesaid government order has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in Jyoti Yadav and another Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021. 12. In case the candidates are allowed to go scot-free even after they make wrong entries in the application form in violation of the examination instructions there will be serious consequences which will go beyond the facts of the case. The recruitment process involves participation of large of candidates and huge logistical efforts are made to ensure successful culmination of the same. While it is the duty of the courts to protect rights of the candidates, it is equally the responsibility of the candidates to strictly adhere to the instructions given by the examining body for filling up of the examination forms. The instructions given in the examination form in the instant case are of a mandatory nature. Violation of the same has to result in the invalidation of the candidature. A liberal view to condone such errors as a matter of right will lead to large scale of disarray in the recruitment process and undermine public confidence and transparency in the recruitment system. 13. The candidature of the petitioner was clearly in the teeth of the government order dated 05.03.2021. Very large numbers of candidates participate in the recruitments of this nature. In case candidates are permitted to rectify such errors in the examination forms it will open up a Pandora's Box of a number of claims and counter claims. The recruitment process will get derailed and the appointments will get indefinitely delayed. Such course of action will be contrary to the mandate of the government order dated 05.03.2021 and also the law laid down by this Court. The government order dated 05.03.2021 has to be construed in a manner that it protects the sanctity of the examination system. The recruitment process will get derailed and the appointments will get indefinitely delayed. Such course of action will be contrary to the mandate of the government order dated 05.03.2021 and also the law laid down by this Court. The government order dated 05.03.2021 has to be construed in a manner that it protects the sanctity of the examination system. The errors as depicted in the application of the petitioner come within the mischief of the said government order and cannot be rectified subsequently. The cancellation of the petitioner's candidature was in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition is dismissed.