Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 567 (ALL)

Devendra Kumar Verma v. State Of U. P.

2025-04-01

AJIT KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. (C.M.A No. 2 of 2025: Application for impleadment) The impleadment application is allowed. Petitioner is directed to carry out necessary impleadment forthwith. (Writ Petition) 1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, namely, the Secretary U.P. Suobrdinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the selection result dated 22.09.2024 declared/published by the respondent No. 2 raising a plea that the normalization rules that have been made application to the written test held in the matter was not a justified action in view of the notification issued on 22.05.2019 which specifically quoted certain advertisement pursuant to which selection was underway at that point of time. 3. It is submitted that the advertisement was issued for the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Vikas Adhikar and Samaj Kalyan Parivakshek being numbered 2-examination 2018 and had the Government this intention in mind to apply normalization rules it would have mentioned this in the advertisement dated 22.05.2019. Thus, it is contended that the entire result that has been published on the basis of normalization rules is liable to be quashed. 4. Meeting the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for petitioner Shri Singhal, argued that this advertisement though was issued in the year 2018 but the selection process initially had already concluded prior to the issuance of the notification dated 22.05.2019. However, since the selection process was annulled subsequently by the State Government immediately after some time, so fresh written test was liable to be held and so written test was held on 26.06.2023 and it is for this very reason that the said advertisement could not find mention in the notification dated 22.05.2019. It is contended that, had the Government not annulled the selection process then the selection would have been completed in the year 2018 itself and there would have been no question to hold fresh written examination and to apply normalization rules. It is contended that, had the Government not annulled the selection process then the selection would have been completed in the year 2018 itself and there would have been no question to hold fresh written examination and to apply normalization rules. It is submitted that since the selection process was annulled and the fresh written examination was held after the year 2019, then in view of the last paragraph of the notification dated 22.05.2019 and since the written examination was conducted in more than one shift, the normalization rule was adopted and applied and, hence, there was not flaw in the procedure followed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records while I find that there is no mention of the advertisement bearing No. 2-examination 2018 in the notification dated 22.05.2019 but the counsel for petitioner could not dispute that the selection process that was undertaken pursuant to the said advertisement had already been annulled prior to the date of notification dated 22.05.2019. In such circumstances, therefore, the Commission was at liability to issue fresh notification for holding written test and accordingly those candidates who had applied earlier pursuant to the advertisement were permitted to participate in the written examination that was held on 26.06.2023. The last paragraph of the notification dated 22.05.2019 which has become relevant here is reproduced below: 6. From a bare reading of the aforesaid paragraph it transpires that the Commission intended to apply normalization rules in all such written examinations that are either notified under the notification dated 22.05.2019 or otherwise to be held in future where tests are to be held in two shifts. In my considered view, unless and until the normalization rules itself are questioned to be flawed one, the commission cannot be said to have faulted in applying normalization rules to all future examination pursuant to the notification dated 22.05.2019. 7. Even otherwise and looking to the object I find that normalization rules have been made applicable on account of different set of question asked in different set of papers and to do justice to the candidates as the questions may be tough in some ways and easier in other ways and so a balance is to be struck for the purposes of creating merit list. Nothing has been argued before me as to why the normalization rule is bad and hence should not have been applied. In my considered view since the written test has been held subsequently to the notification dated 22.05.2019, the Commission was fully justified in applying normalization to the test in question. 8. Petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.