Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Kuntal And 65 Others vs State Of U.P. And 12 Others on 18 October, 2019
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3312 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Kuntal And 65 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Rajeev Kumar Saini Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. At the outset, this Court records its displeasure in filing of a composite writ petition at the instance of 66 petitioners, particularly when individual rights of all 66 persons are involved and they are non-suited on different grounds. Sri Siddharth Khare appearing for the petitioners submits that when petition was filed, petitioners were not aware about ground for denial of their candidature.
2. Since the writ petition has already been entertained and pleadings have been exchanged, therefore, matter is taken up for final disposal. Sri Khare has pointed out grievance of the petitioners, which can be segregated into following categories:-
(a) Petitioners, who have been denied consideration on the charge that they indulged in impersonation during the conduct of recruitment.
(b) Petitioners, who have not been able to secure marks above the cut off in their respective category.
(c) Petitioners, who have allegedly not participated in the physical standard test and the document verification.
(d) Petitioners, who have failed to qualify the physical standard test.
3. Petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Constable pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2018. As per advertisement, an application had to be made online, which was followed with a written test, document verification, physical standard test, medical examination, and thereafter the final select list was to be drawn. It is not in issue that all petitioners participated at the three stages and at none of the stages, any dispute with regard to their identity was raised during the course of recruitment proceedings. However, when the final result has been declared, petitioners' name do not figure in the select list. Petitioners at this stage have approached this Court by filing present writ petition. Prayer is made to set aside the final select list, insofar as it excludes the name of present petitioners. A further prayer is made to direct the respondents to re-draw the merit list, after including the petitioners' name also.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, in which a chart is annexed in respect of all petitioners. This chart indicates that some of the petitioners have been declared unfit at the stage of physical standard test. So far as those petitioners are concerned, determination of physical parameters made at the time of physical standard test attaches finality, and therefore such those petitioners cannot have any grievance, if they have not been selected. The writ petition at their instance stands rejected.
5. The other category of petitioners are those whose candidature stands rejected on the ground that there is a mismatch between the thumb impression affixed on the document verification vis-a-vis the admitted document. Petitioners submit that neither they have been informed of the reasons as to why their candidature has been rejected, nor any opportunity of hearing has been given to them in that regard. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, in Writ Petition No.2813 of 2017, decided on 16.4.2018, which has been affirmed with dismissal of Special Appeal No. 2813 of 2018, on 8.5.2019. It is submitted that in case the authorities had any material to reject petitioners' candidature on such ground, a reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners.
6. The third category of persons pertains to those petitioners who have not been selected, as they have failed to secure marks above the cut off in their respective category. Those candidates who have secured marks below the cut off in their respective category can possibly have no valid grievance, which may require determination by this Court. So far as petitioner no.15 is concerned, it is stated that he had not qualified the physical efficient test. No interference at the instance of petitioner no.15 is required.
7. So far as the petitioner no.47 is concerned, according to respondents he had remained absent at the stage of physical standard test. The petitioner, however, dispute the averments in that regard with reference to various documents, which have been annexed alongwith the rejoinder affidavit. Issue as to whether the petitioner had appeared in the physical efficiency test or not is essentially an issue of fact, and it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to represent his grievance in this regard before the Police Recruitment Board and the same shall be examined, in accordance with law.
8. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that materials do exist on record for the authorities to form an opinion that petitioners have indulged in impersonation and their candidature has rightly been cancelled. It is, however, not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioners have not been confronted with materials in that regard, nor any reasoned order has been passed in respect of their candidature.
9. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is disposed of with following orders:-
(i) Writ petition at the instance of those petitioners, who have secured marks below the cut off in their respective category stands dismissed.
(ii) So far as petitioner nos.15, 47, 58, 61 and 63 is concerned, the petitioners shall be at liberty to represent their grievance before the respondents annexing all materials to show that they had taken part in the physical standard test and document verification, which shall be got examined, and an appropriate reasoned order would be passed in respect of said petitioners.
(iii) Petitioners, who have not been able to qualify physical standard test cannot have any grievance with regard to denial of selection to them and the writ petition at their instance fails and is dismissed.
(iv) Petitioner nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 39, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 62, 65 and 66, who have been non-suited on account of mismatch between their thumb impression on the admitted documents vis-a-vis thumb impression obtained on the date of document verification etc., would be informed of the materials that exist against them in respect of respondents' plea that petitioners have indulged in impersonation. Such intimation would be given to them, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Petitioners in that regard would have an opportunity to submit their reply annexing materials that they intent to rely upon in support of their claim. The authorities shall get the matter examined and would pass an appropriate order, within a further period of two months, thereafter. While taking such decision, the authorities would keep in mind the observations made by this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh (supra).
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Anil