Allahabad High Court
Akanksha Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 July, 2020
Author: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4417 of 2020 Petitioner :- Akanksha Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State - respondent and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
On 08.07.2020, this Court passed the following order:-
"By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction commanding the respondent no.2 to conduct interview of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer English in Non Engineering Branch in Technical Education Department, U.P. in pursuance of Advertisement no.1/2014-15 dated 16.05.2014. Further prayer has been made to command the respondent no.2 to declare the result of the petitioner and select her on the post of Lecturer English in Non Engineering Branch in Technical Education Department U.P. in pursuance of Advertisement no.1/2014-15 dated 16.05.2014.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Clause 4 and 7 of the advertisement no.1/2014-15 dated 16.05.2014 annexed as Annexure 1 of the writ petition, wherein, clause 4 provides that "the application once submitted, will not be allowed, to be modified" and clause 7 provides that "if the candidates want some correction or change in their submitted applications, they can submit another fresh complete applications with desired corrections along with prescribed fee within the last notified dates of the advertisement. The application fee deposited with the prior application will neither be returned nor adjusted in any condition."
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner states that once the respondent no.3-Ms. Reena Gangawar, who is a selected candidate, had applied and in the application form, she herself has filled up description of Post Graduate percentile as 61.25, then under what circumstances, it has been rectified without any such application for correction resulting in ouster of petitioner for interview.
Confronted with this situation, Shri Sumit Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the matter be placed for tomorrow so that necessary instructions be taken in the matter.
Request made is accepted.
Put up this matter tomorrow as fresh."
In paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit and relevant paras of rejoinder affidavit, it has clearly stated that the marks obtained by the petitioner is 62% while the percentage of marks of the respondent no.3 is 63.36% and the cut off marks is 63 % for OBC candidates.
Admittedly, the petitioner is an OBC candidate and his percentage of marks is 62 % i.e. below the cut off marks. The marks of the respondent no.3 is admittedly 63.36%.
Since the percentage of marks of the petitioner is below the cut off marks, therefore, I do not find any good reason to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.7.2020/vkg