Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2862
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19734 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Rai,Ashok Khare Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Challenge is laid in this petition to the declaration of result on 08.03.2019 for the appointment to the post of Technician Grade-II pursuant to an advertisement contained in annexure No.2 to the writ petition dated 17.02.2018. Various grounds are urged to assail selection itself. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that an identical petition with similar allegation has already been dismissed by this Court on 18.09.2019 in Writ Petition No. 14194 of 2019. Judgment of this Court reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Satya Prakash holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Advocate for contesting respondent nos.2 to 4.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the select list dated 8.3.2019 issued by the Secretary, Electricity Service Commission, U.P, Power Corporation, U.P., Lucknow.
The admitted fact of the matter reflected from the record of the writ petitions are that the respondents had published the advertisement dated 17.2.2018 for appointment to the post of Technician Grade-II Electric (Trainee), U.P. Power Corporation. The qualifying computer test, online written examination was held on 24.1.2019. As per the advertisement notification, the written examination comprised of two parts; first part was qualifying examination of computer test comprising of 50 marks and the condition was that a candidate had to attain minimum 20 marks or else his question paper for the second part of the examination would not be evaluated. The second part of the written examination comprised of one question paper of four courses of maximum 200 marks. For qualifying second part of the written test, the candidates had to attain minimum 33.5.% marks. It is further clarified in the aforesaid notification that candidates who attain less than 67 marks in the second part of written examination would be ousted from the zone of consideration. The result was declared on 8.3.2019. As per the select list dated 8.3.2019 displayed on the Website of the respondent Commission (page '139' of the paper book), last selected candidate in O.B.C category had obtained 105.051 marks which is normalized cut off marks for the said category.
It is admitted in paragraph '16' of the writ petition that the petitioner who belongs to O.B.C category had obtained 21.5 marks out of 50 marks in the computer knowledge; ie, first section of the written examination; and had obtained 77.00 marks out of 200 in the second part. It is, thus, clear that having obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first section; ie, computer knowledge test, the answer script of the petitioner was evaluated, he, however, got much lesser marks than the last selected candidate in O.B.C category as per the result dated 8.3.2019 appended with the writ petition, itself.
On a pointed query made by the Court as to the entitlement of the petitioner to seek selection despite having much lesser marks than the last selected candidate in O.B.C category, reliance is placed on the averments made in paragraph '14' of the writ petition. It is stated therein that one candidate namely Sanjay Kumar bearing roll no.200182602626 had obtained only 18.25 marks in the first part of the written examination; ie, computer knowledge and had obtained 72.50 marks out of 200 in the second paper in O.B.C category. He, however, had been selected by enhancement of his marks in the process of normalisation.
As far as the averments made in paragraph '15' of the writ petition, the same are found misconceived, in as much as, the selected candidate mentioned therein, as per own contention of the petitioner, belongs to S.C category and had obtained 78.50 marks more than the cut-off marks in his category. The assertion of the petitioner that he had obtained less than 20 marks in the computer knowledge; ie first section of the examination is not open for scrutiny for the fact that the petitioner belongs to O.B.C category.
As far as the contention of the petitioner in paragraph '14' of the writ petition, suffice it to say that the selected candidate who allegedly got lesser marks than the qualifying marks of 20 in the first section and also lesser actual mark in the second part of the examination is not impleaded in the writ petition, and, as such, the allegations made in paragraph '14' of the writ petition are not open for examination. It is further noteworthy that the entire final select list is being challenged after a period of seven months without any explanation provided by the petitioner as to the laches on his part that too without impleadment of the candidates who have been appointed in the selection.
The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner has obtained much lesser marks than the last selected candidate in his own category. The challenge to the select list declared on 8.3.2019 would not be of any consequence as no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The challenge to the normalisation process adopted by the respondents is casual on vague assertions.
It has been held by the Apex Court and this Court time and again that challenge to the select list of a competitive examination cannot be made in a casual manner. Reference may be made to the judgement of Apex Court in Ashok Kumar & others Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069.
For the fact culled out from the record, this Court does not find any justification to accept the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner to permit him to implead the selected candidate mentioned in paragraph '14' of the writ petition or to file any supplementary affidavit.
The writ petition is found wholly misconceived and hence dismissed."
In the present writ petition also none of the selected candidates are arrayed as a party. The result of selection was declared way back in March 2019. There is absolutely no reason for filing the present writ petition after expiry of more than nine months. The averments made in this writ petition otherwise do not appear to have been made after proper scrutiny. In view of the fact that writ petition with identical grounds has already been dismissed on 18.09.2019, and the selected persons are otherwise not a party before this Court, I am not inclined to take any different view in the matter. Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.12.2019 Abhishek Singh