Allahabad High Court
Ritambhara vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 September, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13031 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ritambhara Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Archit Mandhyan alongwith Sri Rishabh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Lavlesh Shukla alongwith Sri Shashi Prakash Rai learned counsel for the University and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Challenge has been raised to the Office Order dated 14.8.2022 issued by the respondent University declaring the result of successful candidates who have been appointed Assistant Professor in the subjects English, Commerce, Social Work and Home Science.
In short, petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor English under general category. It is her case, she had submitted all valid documents and appeared in the objective test conducted by the University on 16.6.2022. Though the result of the objective test was declared on the same day, however the University failed to upload the question paper together with the model answer key. For that reason the petitioner was unable to file any objections. This is stated to be a serious breach of the Order No. E-3019/32-GS/2020 dated 18.5.2021 issued by the Governor. Relevant to the objection being raised, clause-5 of the Government Order reads as below:-
"5.Sabhi abhyarthiyon ko domain knowledge (Domain knowledge) ka aanklan karne ke liye objective type likhit pareeksha li jayegi. Likhit pareeksha ka aayojan is prakar hona chahiye ki isme poori pardarshita ho aur pareeksha aayojan ke tatkal baad yathasambhav usi din iska parinaam ghoshit kiya jaye.Praaptank tatkal prakashit kiya jayega aur iske sambandh mein bhi aapattiyan aamantrit ki jayegi. Aapattiyan praapt karne hetu 03 din ka samay diya jayega. Sabhi aapattiyan email ke madhyam se praapt ki jayegi. Nirdharit awadhi me yadi kisi abhyarthi ki koi aapatti praapt hoti hai to uska nirakaran karke sanshodhit praaptank prakashit kiya jayega. Pareeksha aayojit karne ke liye kulpati ke paryavekshan mein vishvidyalaya ka pareeksha niyantrak uttardayi hoga."
Referring to clause-6 of the above Order, it has been then submitted, no final merit list has been prepared and published. Thus, it is not clear, whether petitioner had scored higher or lesser marks than the selected candidates.
On the other hand learned counsel for the University would submit, though the result of the objective test was declared on 16.6.2020, neither any objection nor any communication came to be made by the petitioner to the University, in that regard. The petitioner never objected to her result. The objection being now raised is artificial and in any case grossly belated.
Upon declaration of the result on 16.6.2022, a basic academic scores (API) were computed. Upon physical verification, it was found that the petitioner has not been awarded Ph.D. Degree. Accordingly, her API score was computed by deducting 30 marks. Resultantly, the petitioner did not gain eligibility to be invited for interview that were held in the month of August 2022. At present, result has been declared and the selected candidates have joined. In these facts, it has been submitted that the petitioner having participated in the selection process that too without any objection, she cannot now be permitted to raise belated challenge only because she has failed to secure appointment.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, inasmuch as the petitioner did not make any demand to the University to upload or otherwise make available the question paper and the model answer key soon after the declaration of the result on 16.6.2022, the petitioner cannot be permitted to now raise such objection after completion of the selection process and upon appointment being granted. To that extent, the challenge raised is wholly belated. Even then the petitioner does not disclose any reasonable ground to offer interference at her instance as there is no reasonable allegation of extremely low marks having been awarded to her in objective test conducted by the University on 16.6.2022. Unless some prima facie material had been brought to the Court, indulgence claimed by the petitioner would only amount to conducting a fishing and roving enquiry without any reasonable ground. That may never be done in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Then, there is also no case set up by the petitioner that she possesses the Ph.D. Degree in English. In view of such facts, interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Faraz