Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar And 26 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 December, 2020
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 10 December 2020 Delivered on 14 December 2020 Court No. - 81 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11079 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar And 26 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv),Shatrughan Sonwal,Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4193 of 2020 Petitioner :- Richa Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8343 of 2020 Petitioner :- Jyoti Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Bihari Tewari,Ankur Azad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava,Archana Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10317 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shailesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girja Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11072 of 2020 Petitioner :- Abdul Muttalib Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Akram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11170 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sudha Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Khare,Udai Narain Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11402 of 2020 Petitioner :- Harsh Kaushik Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Narain Khare,Gopal Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11632 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shweta Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harindra Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11643 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Avatar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
This batch of writ petitions relates to the selection and recruitment of Assistant Teachers under an exercise initiated by the Department of Basic Education in the State of U.P. The process of selection and appointment can be viewed as comprising of two stages- the first being the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination1 conducted by the Examination Regulatory Authority; the second being the process of inviting candidates who had successfully passed the ATRE to participate in a counselling process and their ultimate appointment in accordance with merit.
The petitioners in this batch are aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in not permitting them to rectify information entered by them in the online application forms submitted in the ATRE. The petitioners appear to have incorrectly declared the marks obtained by them in the High School, Intermediate, Graduation or Training examinations resultantly impacting the declarations made in respect of their quality point marks. While some petitioners have ascribed a lesser value to the actual or aggregate marks of an examination, some have declared a higher numerical value. The petitioners also assail the action of the respondents in the context of the data collected by the respondents at the stage of the ATRE being utilised further for the purposes of completion of the recruitment of Assistant Teachers.
It becomes relevant to note that a successful passing of the ATRE is one of the essential prerequisites for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in terms of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 19812. In the second phase, candidates who had cleared the ATRE were invited by the respondents to participate in a counselling process and ultimately upon drawl of a merit list based on the quality point marks obtained by each candidate and invitation of options in respect of preferred districts, appointments were to be offered.
It may at the outset itself be noticed that this Court has negatived similar prayers for permission to rectify information comprised in the online application forms in terms of its decision rendered in Dharmendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others3 and Hari Nath Yadav v. Sate of U.P. and Others4. While dismissing those writ petitions the Court in Dharmendra Kumar observed: -
".........
Following the principles enunciated in the Full Bench decision of the Court in Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (8) ADJ 219 and the decision of the Division Bench in Km. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of U.P. [Special Appeal Defective No. 582 of 2016] the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for. In both the decisions noted above, the sanctity of a last date have been duly emphasized.
In Km. Pooja Yadav, the Division Bench had negatived an identical submission of a candidate being permitted to rectify the details set forth in the online form after conclusion of the selection process and held as under: -
"We note that the appellant does not dispute the fact that she had incorrectly filled in the column pertaining the marks obtained by her in the High School Examination in her online application form. She does not appear to have taken any steps for rectification of the said mistake till she was refused permission to participate in the medical tests which were held on 11 July 2016. The respondents assert that the recruitment process initiated for the purposes of filling up as many as 5,800 vacancies is complete and that they are presently engaged in the preparation of the final result. A direction issued at this stage would clearly result in hindering the process of finalization of the result in respect of a recruitment exercise which had commenced in December 2015. Any interference by this Court at this stage may also lead to further complicating the steps presently being taken by the respondents and not brooking a situation where similar complaints and prayers for rectification may come to be made. This Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that no effective relief can be granted to the appellant at this stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly and for reasons assigned therein, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for. This petition is dismissed. "
While dealing with the petition of Hari Nath Yadav, the Court held:-
".....Any direction issued at this stage permitting rectifications in the original application forms which may have the effect of disturbing the inter se merit as framed and embodied in the result dated 12 May 2020 would be not only wholly unfair to the thousands of selected candidates who have been awaiting closure but also adversely impact teaching work in primary educational institutions throughout the State.
The Court must also necessarily bear in mind the imperative of enabling a completion of a recruitment exercise undertaken by the State and set at rest all uncertainties. Permitting the rectification of forms originally submitted more than a year ago and at this belated stage would clearly be detrimental to public interest.
Accordingly and for reasons assigned hereinabove, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for. This petition is dismissed. "
However and subsequent to the aforementioned two petitions being decided and since several similar petitions were coming before the Court, the respondents were directed to collate a list of all matters pertaining to ATRE. While hearing respective counsels in Writ A 5008 of 2020, the Court classified matters under four broad heads and indicated that all matters pertaining to correction of marks in the online applications would be put down for hearing. It is in the above backdrop that this batch was taken up for final disposal.
The Court has heard Sri H.N. Singh, Sri R.K. Ojha learned senior counsels, Sri Seemant Singh and other counsels appearing for the petitioners. Submissions on behalf of the State respondents were advanced by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Bipin Behari Pandey the Chief Standing Counsel and Sri P.D. Tripathi who represented the Basic Education Officer in some of the matters. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Bipin Behari Pandey learned Chief Standing Counsel have placed a compilation of documents and judgments which have been duly circulated. They have also along with an affidavit filed in connected Writ A 5008 of 2020 brought on record the Government Order of 4 December 2020 a copy of which has also been provided to counsels for petitioners. The said Government Order comprises the decision of the State to deal with the question of inadvertent errors and other allied issues relating to the recruitment exercise in question.
Before proceeding to enter the merits of the dispute and since the selection itself has had a history of litigation, it would be appropriate to briefly recapitulate significant events surrounding ATRE and the recruitment exercise in question. The same are detailed hereinbelow in the form of a chronology of events :-
S. NO.
DATE EVENT
1. 01.12.18 State Government issues an order formulating Guidelines for the conduct of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2019 for filling up 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers. The Guidelines apart from setting out the detailed procedure to be followed for the examination also set out a time schedule for completion of the entire process commencing from 5 December 2018 and concluding on 22 January 2019.
2. 05.12.2018 Public notice is issued inviting applications. Registration was opened from 06.12.18 till 20.12.18. Detailed guidelines in respect of the entire selection process were also uploaded and a dedicated weblink indicated.
3. 20.12.2018 Registration date was extended till 22.12.18 to enable freshly passed TET 2019 candidates to also apply and participate.
4.
-
Upon due scrutiny of documents 4,31,066 persons were found eligible to participate in the examination.
5. 06.01.2019 Exams were successfully held across the State. 4,09,530 candidates participated in the same.
6. 07.01.2019 By a G.O. of the said date, cut off marks were declared.
General = 97/150 i.e. 65 % Reserved = 90/150 i.e.60 %
7. 08.01.2019 Answer keys for all four series of question papers were uploaded on the website. Objections invited till 11.1.2019.
8. 11.01.2019 20557 objections to 142/150 questions received.
9. 18.01.2019 Committee of teachers/ experts gave their opinion on the queries.
10. 07.01.2019 Petitions against the final answer key were filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Court. These petitions were clubbed with Writ Petition No. 1188/2019 Mohd. Rizwan v. UP.
11. 29.03.2019 Judgment was delivered on the aforesaid petition quashing the cut off marks declared on 7.1.2019. This order declared the marks to be kept at par with the 2018 cut-off i.e. 45/40 % for general/reserved categories respectively).
12. A Special Appeal was filed against the above order of 29.3.2019. This special appeal was clubbed with 16 other special appeals leading being Special Appeal No. 156/2019 Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. UP.
13. 06.05.2020 Special Appeals were allowed and directions issued for declaration of results in terms of the cut off prescribed in the order of 7.1.2019. The challenge to the cut off fixed by Shiksha Mitras was negatived.
14. 08.05.2020 Government Order was issued for declaration of results.
15.
-
Based on the consultations held till 18.01.2019 by the expert committee, 3 questions were found to be out of syllabus. Challenges to the rest of the questions were declared to be without any merit. The answers in respect of these questions as declared on 08.01.2019 were held to be the correct answers by the committee.
16. 08.05.2020 Final answer key was published.
17. 12.05.2020 Results were declared. 1,46,060 out of 431466 passed the exam.
18. 16.05.2020 Government Order was issued for taking further steps for appointment of Assistant Teachers including inviting of district wise options for 69,000 vacant positions.
Note: This order informed all candidates that the data already captured during the ATRE in respect of educational qualifications would be utilized and candidates would have to fill the online application from the stage of district wise preferences.
19. 21.05.2020 SLP filed by Ram Sharan Maurya against the judgment rendered by the Division Bench at Lucknow in the matter of Raghvendra Pratap Singh and others comes up for hearing before the Supreme Court where interim directions were issued restraining the State from disturbing the working of Shiksha Mitras while permitting filling up of remaining vacancies.
20. 01.06.2020 A district wise allotment list for 69000 posts was published by the Secretary of the Board in terms of the online applications received. Secretary also ordered the counselling process to begin from 03.06.2020.
21. 03.06.2020 Petitions challenging the final answer key came to be filed before the Lucknow Bench. These petitions were clubbed with Service Single 8056/2020 Rishabh Mishra v. UP. An order was passed by the Bench staying the notification of 08.05.2020 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.
22. 03.06.2020 In view of the aforesaid order, the ongoing counselling process was adjourned until further orders by the Secretary.
23. 09.06.2020 In SLP 6687/2020 Subedar Singh v. UP taken against the judgment rendered by the Division Bench on 6.5.2020, Supreme Court permitted the State Government to complete the appointment process in respect of all vacancies except 37,339 positions which represented the number of Shiksha Mitras who had participated and were declared successful in the ATRE.
24. 12.06.2020 Special Appeal 154/2020 Pariksha Nyamak Adhikari, UP v. Rishabh Mishra is filed before the Lucknow Bench. In this appeal the order of 03.06.2020 passed in Rishabh Mishra v. UP (8056/2020) is stayed. The Court further directs the State to complete the appointment process in compliance with the Supreme Court interim orders in Ram Sharan and Subedar Singh.
25. 11.10.2020 In compliance of the above direction, all except 37339 i.e. 31661 out of 69000 positions were to be filled in the first phase. Finally and after implementation of reservation provisions, a list for selection of 31227 position was issued by the Secretary along with a direction for counselling and issuance of appointment letters in the allotted districts.
26. 18.11.2020 The Supreme Court upholds the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Raghvendra Pratap Singh and dismisses the SLP of Ram Sharan Maurya and other connected matters. The cut off as prescribed for ATRE was upheld. The challenge laid by Shiksha Mitras was negatived. SLP filed by B.Ed. candidates also disposed of. The State held entitled to fill all posts in terms of the result declared on 12.05.2020 and in accordance with law.
27. 28.11.2020 Secretary issues directions for filling up the remainder 37,339 posts and for completion of the second round of counselling between 2.12.2020 to 4.12.2020.
Before proceeding to set out the submissions addressed, it becomes pertinent to note that none of the petitions impugn the notification issued on 16 May 2020 or the subsequent instructions issued to facilitate conclusion of the selection process. This assumes significance since these notifications did clarify that the data collected at the stage of submission of online applications for the ATRE would be utilised for completing the selection process. The Court also notes that though this notification was issued as far back as May 2020, it was never challenged by any of the petitioners prior to submission of their online applications or even thereafter. The procedure adopted by the respondents was questioned for the first time only during the course of oral submissions. While these two reasons would have been sufficient to negate a challenge on that score, since learned senior counsel laid considerable emphasis on the issue and sought to underline the importance of the challenge, the Court deems it expedient in the interest of justice to deal with the challenge on merits rather than shutting out the petitioners for reasons aforenoted. The Court also deems it expedient to lend a quietus to these and other questions raised at this stage of the selection where proceedings have virtually reached the end and appointments already made.
From the submissions addressed by respective counsels, the Court deems it appropriate to formulate the following seminal issues which fall for determination: -
A. Government Order of 4 December 2020 being in violation of the procedure laid forth in Rule 14 of the Rules B. Whether the Government Order of 4 December 2020 can be said to be discriminatory or unfair?
C. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the permission to carry out corrections and rectifications of entries made in the online application forms?
A. CHALLENGE TO THE GOVERNMENT ORDER OF 4 DECEMBER 2020 The Government Order aforenoted was challenged on two grounds- firstly on the ground of it being in violation of the procedure prescribed by Rule 14 and secondly on the plank of it being discriminatory and unfair.
Sri H.N. Singh learned senior counsel who sought permission to address the Court on behalf of the various petitioners was invited to make submissions. Sri Singh principally assailed the notifications issued post the completion of the ATRE on the ground of them being in violation of Rule 14 as it stood after the 24th Amendment to the Rules. It was contended that these notifications deprived the petitioners of their right to rectify the mistakes inadvertently made while filling their online applications for the ATRE.
Taking the Court through Rule 14 Sri Singh submitted that the provision clearly mandated the respondents inviting all applicants who had successfully cleared the ARTE to submit their online application forms thus affording them an opportunity to provide all particulars including relating to the computation of marks as per Appendix I and II of the Rules. According to Sri Singh if this procedure had been adhered to the applicants who may have committed inadvertent mistakes while filling their online application forms for the ATRE would have had an opportunity to rectify the same. Sri Singh would submit that the original application form which was submitted by candidates was only for the purpose of the ATRE which in any case was merely a qualifying examination enabling candidates to ultimately seek appointment as Assistant Teachers based on the scores obtained in that examination and other factors as contemplated under the Appendices.
Sri Singh apprised the Court that at the second stage of the recruitment process, the candidates were not afforded the option of filling particulars relating to their High School, Intermediate, Graduation or Training Qualification examinations since that data was automatically collected from the original online application form submitted in connection with the ATRE upon a candidate registering for participating in the counselling process.
Sri Singh contended that there was no occasion for the computation of quality points in accordance with the Appendices at any stage prior to the second stage since the ATRE was only a qualifying examination concerning the eligibility of candidates to be appointed. It was in that context that it was contended the necessity of obtaining particulars relating to High School, Intermediate, Graduation and Training examination marks afresh and at this stage. This according to Sri Singh is the clear intent of Rule 14(3) where the merit list is ultimately drawn on the basis of the quality points and weightage as specified in Appendix I. In order to appreciate the aforenoted submissions it would be apposite to extract Rule 14 which reads thus: -
[14. Procedure of Selection. - (1) Determination of vacancies. - In respect of appointment, by direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Master of Junior Basic Schools under clause (a) of Rule 5, the appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies as also the number vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other categories under Rule 9 and forward to the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. Information of compiled vacancies as per reservation shall be provided by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj to the Examination Body. For the notified vacancies an Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination shall be conducted by the Examination Body authorised as such by the Government and result, according to reservation, shall be provided to Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj.
Thereafter, an advertisement for recruitment will be published in at least two leading daily newspapers having adequate circulation in the State by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj inviting online applications from candidates possessing prescribed educational and trainings qualification and passed teacher eligibility test, conducted by the Government or by the Government of India and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government, in which cadre wise district option will be filled by the candidates.
(2) The Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj shall scrutinise the applications received in pursuance of the advertisement under clause (a) sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 and prepare a list of such persons who possess the prescribed academic qualifications and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination and be eligible for appointment.
(3) The name of candidates in the list prepared under sub-rule (2) in accordance with clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 shall then be arranged in such manner that the candidate shall be arranged in accordance with the quality points and weightage as specified in the Appendix I:
Provided that if two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher.
Provided that a person working as Shiksha Mitra in Junior Basic Schools run by Basic Shiksha Parishad shall be given weightage in the recruitment of Assistant Teacher, only in two consecutive Assistant Teacher recruitment conducted by the Government after July 25, 2017.
Thereafter, cadre wise district will be allotted to the candidates as per their quality points and options by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj and list will be sent to the appointing authority.
(4) No person shall be eligible for appointment unless his or her name is included in the list prepared under sub-rule (3).
(5) The list prepared under sub-rule (2) and received in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 from the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, shall be forwarded by the appointing authority to the Selection Committee.] A careful reading of the aforesaid provision establishes the following procedure to be adopted for appointment of Assistant Teachers. The first preparatory step contemplated under Rule 14(1) is the determination of vacancies by the appointing authority which is then forwarded to the Secretary of the Board. The information so collected from the various appointing authorities is then forwarded by the Secretary to the Examining Body with a request to conduct the ATRE. The Rule then contemplates the Examining Body conducting the ATRE and providing the final results thereof to the Secretary. It is thereafter that an advertisement for recruitment comes to be published inviting online applications from candidates who apart from possessing the essential qualifications prescribed under the Rules have successfully passed the ATRE. It becomes pertinent to note that in this online application form candidates are required to indicate their district wise options.
In terms of Rule 14(2) the Secretary upon due scrutiny of the applications so received then proceeds to draw a list of persons who are found to possess the stipulated essential qualifications and have passed the ATRE. Sub Rule (3) requires the Board to arrange the names of candidates in accordance with the quality points and weightage as specified in Appendix I. This constitutes the merit list for the ultimate appointment of Assistant Teachers. Upon completion of these processes the Secretary proceeds with the allocation of cadre wise districts to candidates. Sub Rule (4) enjoins that no person shall be eligible for appointment unless the name of that individual finds place in the list prepared under sub rule (3).
Having noticed the broad scheme of Rule 14 the stage is now set to evaluate the submissions of Sri Singh. The Court finds itself unable to accept the contention of the respondents having violated Rule 14 for reasons which stand recorded hereinafter.
At the very outset the Court fails to find any fundamental or inherent illegality in the respondents having collated data which stood captured in the original online applications submitted by candidates in the ATRE. Rule 14 does not engraft any such express or implicit prohibition. 4,31,466 candidates had registered with the Examining Body to participate in the ATRE. A total of 4,09,530 candidates ultimately participated in that examination. The particulars of 4,09,530 candidates including their details in connection with Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Appendix I [Quality Points computation based on High School, Intermediate, Graduation and Training exam results] came to be collected at this stage. Upon culmination of ATRE, 1,46,060 candidates were declared qualified. Their essential and preparatory data thus stood captured and collated by the respondents. The submission of a duplication of this data or the creation of a fresh database in respect of the above information already existing neither appeals to logic nor is it established to be expedient considering the magnitude of the exercise that would have had to be undertaken bearing in mind the size of the pool of successful candidates, the scrutiny and verification of testimonials and other factors. It would have clearly amounted to placing an immense administrative burden on the respondents.
On a more fundamental plane, the Court fails to discern any such mandatory requirement placed by Rule 14. Regard may be had to the fact that the only specific information which Rule 14(1) speaks of is "......inviting online applications from candidates possessing prescribed educational and training qualifications...... and passed Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination conducted by the Government, in which cadre wise district option will be filled by the candidates."
This Court thus upon a holistic reading of Rule 14 fails to find any statutory imperative, explicit or implicit, commanding the respondents to gather data and information on subjects set out in Appendix I afresh even though the same may have already stood created and stored for access, albeit gathered during an ancillary yet indispensable component of the selection process- the ATRE.
The Court also bears in consideration the contents of the notice dated 16 May 2020 which clearly put all candidates to notice of the data collected earlier being utilised to complete the selection process and take it to its culmination.
The relevant extracts of that notice are set out hereunder:
"ऑनलाइन ई आवेदन पत्र का प्रारूप, आवश्यक दिशा निर्देश एवं जनपदवार रिक्तियों का विवरण वेबसाइट https://upbasiceduboard.gov.in/ पर दिनांक 18.5.2020 के अपरान्ह से दिनांक 06.6.2020 साय 6 बजे तक उपलब्ध रहेगा । अभ्यर्थी द्वारा दिनांक 18.5.2020 के अपरान्ह से दिनांक 26.5.2020 की रात्रि 12 बजे तक निर्धारित वेबसाइट पर ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र भरा जा सकेगा । अभ्यर्थी को 69000 सहायक अध्यापको की भर्ती हेतु आयोजित भर्ती परीक्षा के लिए निर्गत किया गया अनुक्रमांक, जन्मतिथि तथा मोबाइल संख्या को निर्धारित वेबसाइट पर भरना होगा, जिसके उपरान्त अभ्यर्थी की उक्त मोबाइल पर ओ टी पी (वन टाइम पॉसवर्ड ) प्राप्त होगा, जिसे भरने पर ही यह आवेदन पत्र में वांछित प्रविष्टियों को पूर्ण कर सकेगा । विशेष रूप से उल्लेखनीय है कि सहायक अध्यापक पद पर नियुक्ति हेतु अभ्यर्थी को भर्ती परीक्षा हेतु भरे गये आवेदन पत्र कि प्रविष्टिया प्रदर्शित हो जायेगी जिसमे किसी प्रकार का परिवर्तन नहीं किया जा सकेगा । उक्त के अतिरिक्त कतिपय अन्य वांछित प्रविष्टियों को अभ्यर्थियों द्वारा भरते हुए आवेदन पत्र को पूर्ण करना होगा । एक बार आवेदन पत्र पूर्ण करने के उपरान्त उसमे किसी प्रकार का संशोधन नहीं किया जा सकेगा ।
उपर्युक्त सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा-2019 में उत्तीर्ण अभ्यर्थियों द्वारा मात्र एक ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र भरा जायेगा जिसमे अभ्यर्थी द्वारा प्रदेश के समस्त 75 जनपदों का विकल्प अपनी इच्छानुसार वरीयताक्रम में भरा जाना अनिवार्य होगा तथा वह अपने गुणांक /भारांक एवं वरीयता तथा जनपद हेतु निर्धारित वर्गवार/ श्रेणीवार रिक्तियों के अनुरूप आवंटित जनपद में दिनांक 03.06.2020 से 06.06.2020 के मध्य सायोजित कॉउन्सिलिंग में प्रतिभाग कर सकेगा । कॉउन्सिलिंग में प्रतिभाग करने का तात्पर्य यह कदापि नहीं है कि वह नियुक्ति हेतु पात्र है । वांछित अनिवार्य शैक्षिक /प्रशिक्षण योग्यताओं /वर्ग श्रेणी के सत्यापनोपरांत अर्ह पाये जाने पर अभ्यर्थी को उनके आवंटित जनपद में नियुक्ति प्रदान कि जायेगी । सकारी/अर्धसरकारी /बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद् के अधीन पूर्व से कार्यरत अभ्यर्थियों को कॉउन्सिलिंग के समय सक्षम प्राधिकारी से एन0 ओ0 सी0 प्राप्त कर प्रस्तुत करना अनिवार्य होगा ।
There was thus an adequate disclosure and notice to the candidates that the data gathered at an earlier stage would be utilised to take the entire selection process to its logical conclusion. The process adopted by the respondents is not found to be in violation of Rule 14. Quite apart from the above the Court bears in mind the mammoth exercise that would have had to be undertaken by the respondents if the submission advanced by the petitioners were accepted. The Court also fails to find any prejudice caused to the candidates in light of the caveats which unambigously placed them on caution to ensure that the entries entered in the online applications were accurate and that no further amendments would be permitted once the form was saved and locked. This aspect will be further evident from the discussion that follows.
On a consideration of the aforesaid the Court is of the firm view that the challenge to the Government Order on this score must necessarily fail. It accordingly stands negatived.
B. THE GOVERNMENT ORDER OF 4 DECEMBER BEING DISCRIMINATORY AND UNFAIR While the aforesaid Government Order deals with various issues relating to ATRE, since this batch is concerned only with the prohibition to rectify online application forms insofar as they relate to the marks obtained by candidates in the High School, Intermediate, Graduation and Training examinations, it would be pertinent to extract hereinbelow the decision of the State Government as comprised in the aforesaid order insofar as this aspect is concerned: -
"बिन्दु संख्या -2 : अभ्यर्थियों द्वारा प्रस्तुत हाईस्कूल , इण्टरमीडिएट, स्नातक, प्रशिक्षण के प्राप्तांक एवं पूर्णांक तथा प्राप्त एक्सेल सीट के पूर्णांक व प्राप्तांक में भिन्नता--
उपर्युक्त प्रकार के विसंगतियों के सम्बन्ध में निम्नानुसार कार्यवाही किये जाने का निर्णय लिया गया है:--
(1) यदि अभ्यर्थी द्वारा मूल अंकपत्र के सापेक्ष प्राप्तांक कम भरा गया है तो ऐसे अभ्यर्थी से कम अंक भरने का समुचित अभिलेखीय आधार प्राप्त कर लिया जाय । समुचित आधार पाये जाने पर अभ्यर्थी से इस आशय का शपथ पत्र अनिवार्य रूप से लेकर कि वह अपनी भरे हुए कम अंक के आधार पर चयन से सहमत है तथा भविष्य में अधिक प्राप्तांक के आधार पर मेरिट परिवर्तन की मांग नहीं करेगा । चूंकि मेरिट में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं होना है, इस कारण उसको नियुक्ति पत्र निर्गत कर दिया जाय ।
(2) यदि अभ्यर्थी द्वारा मूल अंकपत्र के सापेक्ष पूर्णांक अधिक भरा गया है तो ऐसे अभ्यर्थी से अधिक पूर्णांक भरने का समुचित अभिलेखीय आधार प्राप्त कर लिया जाय । समुचित आधार पाये जाने पर अभ्यर्थी से इस आशय का शपथ पत्र लेकर कि वह अपने भरे हुए अधिक पूर्णांक के आधार पर चयन से सहमत है तथा भविष्य में मूल/कम पूर्णांक के आधार पर मेरिट परिवर्तन की मांग नहीं करेगा । चूंकि मेरिट में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं होना है, इस कारण उसको नियुक्ति पत्र निर्गत कर दिया जाय ।
(3) ऐसे अभ्यर्थी जो आवेदन पत्र में शैक्षिक अहर्ता में प्राप्त वास्तविक अंक से अधिक प्राप्तांक भरें हैं, के सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि चूंकि मेरिट अभ्यथी द्वारा अंकित प्राप्तांक के आधार पर निर्धारित होता है अतः यदि उनको वास्तविक कम प्राप्तांक के आधार पर चयन किया जाता है तो मेरिट परिवर्तित हो जाएगी । इससे पूरी चयन सूची परिवर्तित हो जाएगी । वास्तविक प्राप्तांक से अधिक अंक भरने का उद्देश्य येन-केन प्रकारेण चयनित होने का भी हो सकता है, उक्त के अतिरिक्त मा0 उच्चतम न्यायलय के आदेश दिनांक 18.11.2020 द्वारा पूर्व में प्रकाशित की गयी मेरिट सूची (चयन सूची) के आधार पर नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया पूर्ण करने के निर्देश दिये गये हैं । उक्त के आलोक में चयन सूची/ मेरिट लिस्ट में किसी प्रकार का परिवर्तन किया जाना उचित नहीं है । इस कारण ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों का चयन निरस्त कर दिया जाय ।
(4) ऐसे अभ्यर्थी जो आवेदन पत्र में शैक्षिक अहर्ता के पूर्णांक को वास्तविक पूर्णांक से कम भरें है, के सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है कि चूंकि मेरिट अभ्यर्थी द्वारा अंकित प्राप्तांक के आधार पर निर्धारित होता है अतः यदि उनको वास्तविक अधिक पूर्णांक के आधार पर चयन किया जाता है तो मेरिट परिवर्तित हो जाएगी एवं इससे पूरी चयन सूची परिवर्तित हो जायेगी । वास्तविक पूर्णांक से कम अंक भरने का उद्देश्य येन-केन प्रकारेण चयनित होने का भी हो सकता है । उक्त के अतिरिक्त मा0 उच्चतम न्यायलय के आदेश दिनांक 18.11.2020 द्वारा पूर्व में प्रकाशित की गयी मेरिट सूची (चयन सूची) के आधार पर नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया पूर्ण करने के निर्देश दिये गये हैं । उक्त के आलोक में चयन सूची/ मेरिट लिस्ट में किसी प्रकार का परिवर्तन किया जाना उचित नहीं है । इस कारण ऐसे अभ्यर्थियों का चयन निरस्त कर दिया जाय।"
Before proceeding to analyse the decision taken, it would be pertinent to bear in mind that Issue No. 2 and its various sub paragraphs use the expression 'प्राप्तांक' and 'पूर्णांक'. It is not disputed inter partes that the word 'प्राप्तांक' would mean the actual total marks obtained by a candidate in a particular examination while the expression 'पूर्णांक' would mean the total aggregate marks assigned for all papers/subjects in that particular examination and against which marks would have been given. To explain it a little differently, while the first expression thus means the total marks in fact awarded to the candidate across all units comprised in that examination, the second means the combined, overall or composite total of the various units against which marks have been awarded. This issue assumes significance since Appendix I requires quality point marks to be computed on the basis of a formula of which "percentage of marks" obtained at the High School, Intermediate, Graduation and Training Examination is a component.
Paragraph-1 deals with a situation where the candidate has inadvertently filled in a figure in respect of total marks lower than those disclosed in the original marksheet. In respect of such cases the Government Order stipulates that subject to the candidate giving an undertaking that he would not raise any claim on the basis of the higher marks shown in the original marksheet, appointment may be offered to him. Paragraph-2 then contemplates a situation where a candidate has by mistake ascribed a higher value to the composite or overall marks of that particular examination when compared with the original marksheet. For this category of mistake also the State has taken a decision to permit such candidates to seek appointment subject to an undertaking being given that they would not raise any claim in future for change of their merit position based on the total composite or aggregate marks as shown in the original marksheet.
In terms of the provisions made in Paragraph-3 the State has taken a conscious decision to disqualify all such candidates who have filled in the total marks in excess of that mentioned in the original marksheet. A similar decision has been taken in respect of that category of candidates who have in their online application forms placed the total composite or aggregate marks of a particular examination at a value lower than that disclosed in the original marksheet. As is evident from a reading of Paragraph-4 these candidates also stand disqualified.
In light of the aforesaid decision taken, while all those petitioners and candidates who fall within paragraphs-1 and 2 would be entitled to seek appointment subject to the furnishing of an undertaking as contemplated, those who fall within the ambit of paragraphs 3 and 4 stand excluded and they shall not be considered further for appointment. The principal dispute which is raised is in respect of those petitioners and candidates who would fall within the ambit of paragraphs 3 and 4.
Upon a holistic reading of paragraphs 1 to 4, it appears that the primary intent of the State Government appears to have been to ensure that the merit list and the final results which were ultimately published on 12 May 2020 need not be revised, amended or reopened. It is pertinent to note that candidates who fall within the scope of paragraphs-1 and 2 would have, if permitted to rectify their mistakes, gained an advantage since the marks disclosed by them in the online application forms stood lower than the marks as shown in the original marksheet. It is in view thereof that the State Government appears to have taken a decision that while such candidates would be permitted to seek appointment, their candidature would be liable to be considered based upon the disclosures made in the online application forms alone. Insofar as candidates who fall within the corners of paragraphs 3 and 4 that concerns itself with a situation where candidates by virtue of the disclosures have gained an advantage in the computation of quality point marks than would actually obtain as per their original marksheets. Where a candidate has either inflated the total actual marks obtained by him or deflates the composite total of that examination, in both situations his quality points would stand increased thus being unfair to the other candidates in the fray. In both situations the quality points obtained by such a candidate would stand disclosed at a value higher than when computed correctly as per the entries appearing in the original marksheets. In respect of both these categories the State appears to have taken into consideration the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Ram Sharan Maurya & Others v. State of U.P. and Others5 to proceed with the making of appointments in accordance with the results declared on 12 May 2020 as well as the fact that in permitting such rectifications the entire merit list itself would have to be recomputed and reopened.
Sri Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assailing these conditions submitted that on a plain reading of paragraphs-1 to 4, it is manifest that the State admits and recognises the existence of a situation of inadvertent errors and mistakes having been committed by candidates across the spectrum. He, therefore, submits that the decision taken insofar as it permits candidates falling within the ambit of paragraphs-1 and 2 to continue to be a part of the selection process is clearly discriminatory. He submits that candidates falling within the scope of paragraphs-1 and 2 have been permitted and afforded the chance to seek appointment notwithstanding the incorrectness of the disclosures made in the online application forms. According to Sri Ojha the decision so taken is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submits that while one particular class of candidates who have made mistakes while filling the online application forms have been permitted to seek appointment, another class standing on equal footing have been denied that right.
It becomes pertinent at the outset to note that candidates falling within the ambit of paragraphs-1 and 2 have not been permitted to affect any rectification in their application forms. In fact, no category or class of candidates have been permitted to effect rectifications. The State has merely taken a decision to permit those falling within paragraphs 1 and 2 to seek appointment solely on the basis of the disclosures as existing in their application forms notwithstanding their incorrect computation of quality points and thus their merit position being adversely affected on account of their own mistake. Even this class of candidates have not been permitted to seek a betterment of their merit position since the marks disclosed by them in their forms stood at a level lower than that which would actually obtain as per their marksheets. It is in that context that the State has chosen to take a decision to call upon those candidates to submit undertakings to the effect that they would not seek any change in their merit position.
Insofar as candidates falling with the ambit of paragraphs 3 and 4 are concerned, they are those whose merit position is placed higher than would actually obtain on account of entries made in the application forms. It is thus manifest that candidates falling within the scope of paragraphs-1 and 2 on the one hand and paragraphs-3 and 4 do not constitute a singular class. While candidates falling under paragraphs 1 and 2 stand at a disadvantage, those who fall under paragraphs-3 and 4 have gained undue advantage on account of the nature of the disclosures that were made by them in the online application forms. The plea of discrimination therefore, does not sustain.
Regard must also be had to the fact that the State appears to have taken a conscious decision to ensure that incorrect disclosures which may impact the merit list as drawn or enable candidates to claim undue advantage over others are not countenanced. This appears to be the principle underlying paragraphs 3 and 4. Candidates falling within the ambit of paragraphs 1 and 2 already stand disadvantaged since their position in the merit list stands lowered on account of their own action, albeit due to inadvertence. Even this class of candidates have been commanded to submit undertakings that they shall not claim any change in their merit position in the future. There is thus a reasonable and germane classification between the two classes of candidates. The decision taken clearly appears to be reasonable since as long as the merit list does not contain candidates who have taken undue advantage on account of the disclosures made by them, it results in no unfairness. In fact the removal of this aberration was imperative in order to maintain the sanctity of the merit list. This issue thus stands answered against the petitioners.
C. WHETHER THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RECTIFY THEIR FORMS AT THIS STAGE The Court while weighing the soundness of the submissions noticed above cannot shut its eyes to the crucial caveats which were set out at multiple stages of the entire selection process placing candidates on notice in unambiguous terms of the imperative need to ensure that the information being filled out in the online applications was accurate. Candidates were informed at all stages that since no amendments or rectifications would be permitted at later stages and after the online applications were digitally locked and stored, they should take adequate care to ensure the correctness of the entries made. In the original ATRE Government Order of 1 December 2018, Paragraph 17 in clear and unambiguous terms underlined the importance of this stage of the online application process in the following terms: -
17. ऑन लाइन आवेदन-
(1) सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा के लिए सचिव परीक्षा नियामक प्राधिकारी, उ० प्र० प्रयागराज द्वारा एन0 आई0 सी0 लखनऊ के सहयोग से ऑन लाइन आवेदन आमंत्रित किये जायेंगेI ऑन लाइन आवेदन हेतु सॉफ्टवेयर का निर्माण एन0 आई० सी० लखनऊ द्वारा कराया जायेगाI (2) ऑन लाइन आवेदन करने के लिए तकनीकी एवं परिचालन समबंधी निर्देश वेबसाइट पर उपलब्ध कराये जायेंगे ǀ अभ्यर्थीयों को यह सलाह दी जाती है कि वह निर्धारित वेबसाइट पर ऑन लाइन आवेदन करने से पूर्व अनुदेशों को सावधानीपूर्वक पढ़ लें ǀ (3) अभ्यर्थीयों को अपने ऑनलाइन आवेदन की अंकित प्रविष्टियों में शंसोधन का कोई अवसर देय नही होगा ǀइसके लिए अनिवार्य है कि अभ्यर्थी रेजिस्ट्रेशन को सब्मिट (Submit)/ फाइनल सेव (Final Save) करने से पूर्व उसका प्रिंट लेकर ऑनलाइन अंकित प्रविष्टियों का अभिलेखों से मिलान अवश्य कर लें ǀ (4) अभ्यर्थीयों से रेजिस्ट्रेशन सब्मिट (Submit)/ फाइनल सेव (Final Save) करने से पूर्व इस आशय के घोषणा पत्र को चयन करना अनिवार्य होगा कि - "मैने ऑनलाइन आवेदन के अंतर्गत किए गये रेजिस्ट्रेशन का प्रिंट निकालकर उसमें की गयी प्रविष्टियों का मिलान मूल अभिलेखों से कर लिया है एवं उसे सही पाया है तथा मैं अपने रेजिस्ट्रेशन को फाइनल सेव करने हेतु पूर्णतः सहमत हूँ फाइनल सेव होने के उपरांत मुझे अपने आवेदन में संशोधन करने का कोई अवसर देय नहीं होगा" ǀ (5) उक्त घोषणा पत्र को चयन करने के उपरान्त अभ्यर्थी के मोबाइल पर भेजे गये OTP को Verify करके अभ्यर्थी को अपना आवेदन पूर्ण करना होगा इसके लिए अनिवार्य है की अभ्यर्थी आवेदन के समय अपने सही मोबाइल नं0 का अंकन करें ǀ (6) अभ्यर्थी द्वारा ऑनलाइन पंजीकरण सब्मिट (Submit)/फाइनल सेव (Final Save) करने के उपरांत किसी व्योरे में परिवर्तन/सुधार के लिए अनुरोध को किसी भी परिस्थिति में स्वीकार नहीं किया जाएगा ǀ किसी भी कारण से पुष्टिकरण पृष्ठ में अभ्यर्थी द्वारा भरे गये किसी त्रुटिपूर्ण व्यौरे से उत्पन्न किसी भी परिणाम के लिए परीक्षा संस्था उत्तरदायी नही होगा ǀ अभ्यर्थी द्वारा ऑनलाइन भरा गया संशोधित विवरण ही अंतिम होगा और भविष्य में ऑनलाइन कोई बदलाव नही किया जायेगा ǀ As is evident from paragraph 17(3), candidates were placed on caution that once the application had been finally saved and submitted, no corrections or rectifications would be possible. It was in that context that it required them to take a printout of the online application and verify its contents with original testimonials. Of seminal significance is the declaration given by candidates at the time of final submission and which is set forth in paragraph 17(4).
The caveat and word of caution set out in paragraph 17 was again reiterated in the advertisement of 5 December 2018, the relevant part of which is extracted hereinbelow:
सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा 2019 में सम्मिलित होने हेतु इच्छुक एवं अर्ह अभ्यर्थीयों से ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र आमंत्रित करते हुए निम्न्वत निर्देशित किया जाता है -
1. अभ्यर्थीयों को अपने ऑनलाइन आवेदन की अंकित प्रविष्टियों में शंसोधन का कोई अवसर देय नही होगा ǀ इसके लिए अनिवार्य है क़ि अभ्यर्थी रेजिस्ट्रेशन को सब्मिट/फाइनल सेव करने से पूर्व ऑनलाइन अंकित प्रविष्टियों का अभिलेखों से मिलान अवश्य कर लें ǀ
2. अभ्यर्थीयों से रेजिस्ट्रेशन को सब्मिट/फाइनल सेव करने से पूर्व इस आशय के घोषणा पत्र की चयन करना अनिवार्य होगा कि - "मैने ऑनलाइन आवेदन के अंतर्गत किए गये रेजिस्ट्रेशन का प्रिंट निकाल कर उसमें की गयी प्रविष्टियों का मिलान मूल अभिलेखों से कर लिया है एवं उसे सही पाया है तथा मैं अपने रेजिस्ट्रेशन को सब्मिट/फाइनल सेव करने हेतु पूर्णतः सहमत हूँ सब्मिट/फाइनल सेव होने के उपरांत मुझे अपने आवेदन में संशोधन करने का कोई अवसर देय नहीं होगा"ǀ
3. अभ्यर्थीयों को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि अभ्यर्थी एक से अधिक ऑनलाइन आवेदन न करेंǀ अभ्यर्थी द्वारा एक से अधिक ऑनलाइन आवेदन किए जाने की स्थिति में आवेदन शुल्क जमा किए गये अंतिम ऑनलाइन आवेदन को मान्य करते हुए पूर्व के समस्त आवेदन निरस्त कर दिए जायेंगे जिसका संपूर्ण उत्तरदायित्व अभ्यर्थी का होगा I It becomes pertinent to note that the online application itself carried a declaration made by the candidate which was in the following terms: -
घोषणा : मै शपथ पूर्वक अभिकथन करता हूँ कि नियुक्ति हेतु ऑनलाइन आवेदन पत्र मे भरी गयी समस्त प्रविष्टियॉं मेरे सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा 2019 हेतु आवेदन मे की गयी प्रविष्टियों एवं मूल अभिलेखों पर आधारित है एवं मेरे संज्ञान में सही एवं सत्य है मुझे विगयापन में दी गई समस्त शर्तें मान्य I है मै प्राथमिक स्तर की अध्यापक पात्रता परीक्षा एवं सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण हूँ I यदि चयन के पूर्व अथवा बाद में जाचोपरान्त कोई विवरण असत्य तथा ग़लत पाया जाता है तो सम्बन्धित अधिकारी को मेरा अभ्यर्थन निरस्त करने तथा मेरे विरुद्ध वैधानिक कार्यवाही करने का अधिकार होगा I आवेदन पत्र में अंकित सूचनाओं से संबंधित सभी मूल प्रमाण पत्र/अंकपत्र, जाति प्रमाण, निवास प्रमाण पत्र, विशेष आरक्षण प्रमाण पत्र आवेदन करने की तिथि के पूर्व से मेरे पास उपलब्ध है I जनपद नियुक्ति के सापेक्ष मेरे ऑनलाइन आवेदन में दिए गये जनपद की वरीयता मुझे स्वीकार है, जिसमे परिवर्तन हेतु मेरे द्वारा किसी भी प्रकार का प्रत्यावेदन प्रस्तुत नही किया जाएगाI सहायक अध्यापक भर्ती परीक्षा 2019 ऑनलाइन आवेदन के समय मेरे द्वारा की गयी प्रविष्टियों को नियुक्ति हेतु आवेदन मे विचार किए जाने पर मेरे द्वारा पूर्ण सहमति प्रदान की जाती हैI यदि कोई भी सूचना ग़लत पाई गई तो उसका उत्तरदायित्व मेरा होगाI This was therefore not a case where candidates were either unaware of the sanctity attached to the disclosures made in online applications or were not apprised of the consequences of mistakes and inadvertent errors being incapable of being rectified once the forms were ultimately saved and locked.
The Court while thus upholding the procedure adopted by the respondents also necessarily takes into consideration that the selection process was not one catering to the young and the adolescent who would certainly deserve a degree of latitude. The selection process in question is for the appointment of Assistant Teachers who will be tasked with the obligation and duty to instill in and impress upon minor school going children the virtues of discipline and exactitude.
While the denial of an opportunity to rectify an unwitting or unintentional error may on the face of it appear to be overly inequitable and harsh especially in cases where the mistake may be apparently borne out from the accompanying record, Courts in these situations cannot be unmindful of the mammoth effort and preparation that precede the convening of a public examination in which lakhs participate and compete amongst each other. The present recruitment itself saw 4,09,530 persons competing in the ATRE. However a pall of uncertainty and the veritable sword of Damocles continues to hover over the fate of the 1,46,060 successful candidates. This position of uncertainty cannot be permitted to perpetuate and linger endlessly. It not only causes grave injustice to the selected candidates but more importantly and in most cases negates and undermines public interest- in this case the efficiencies of thousands of primary educational institutions, the education of minor school going children itself hangs in the balance. It is these issues of vital consequences which must weigh and be accorded due consideration.
It is these very considerations of import and critical essence which impel a closure being accorded to challenges to public examinations with swiftness and certainty. While this is not to suggest that all challenges to selections and public examinations must be perfunctorily rejected or swept aside, at the same time it is the obligation of the Court to ensure that a selection process undertaken for employment under the State is stalled only in the face of a substantial challenge or where the process is established to suffer from manifest illegalities. It would be pertinent to remember the word of caution in this regard entered by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P.6 where it observed: -
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
The aforesaid considerations which must necessarily guide the evaluation of challenges to selection and recruitment were reiterated recently by the Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan7.
Dealing with a similar claim for rectification in application forms submitted in the course of a selection process for Shiksha Nideshaks, a Division Bench of the Court in Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P.8 observed:-
"In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed."
In Jai Karan Singh and 52 others Vs. State of U.P9., another Division Bench of the Court reiterated the aforesaid position observing:-
To examine the issue that have been raised before the Court by the candidates more by way of sympathy then on any legal principle it needs to be remembered that the Examining Body had informed the candidates time and again the necessity of filling the information accurately in the OMR Answer Sheets with a clear instruction that their OMR Answer Sheet would not be evaluated if any mistake is committed. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the candidates had been informed when the advertisement was issued on 21 August 2017 that they should visit the Website of the Board for the ascertaining procedure that was required to be followed for filling up the information in the OMR Answer Sheet. We have referred to the relevant provisions contained in the guidelines uploaded on the Website and we have no manner of doubt that complete information was provided to the candidates for filling the OMR Answer Sheet, particularly with regard to the entries relating to Registration Number, Roll Number, Question Booklet Series and the Language attempted. The candidates were made aware that in case there was any mistake in the information provided by them, the OMR Answer Sheet would not be evaluated and no representation in this regard would be accepted. Not only this, detailed information was also contained in the Admit Card which the candidates had to download. The information contained in the Admit Card has been reproduced above. The candidates were clearly informed that the OMR Answer Sheet would be evaluated through an electronic scanning process and incorrect entries in the OMR Answer Sheet would render the answer sheet invalid. Candidates were also informed that if they darkened more than one circle the, answer would be treated as wrong and that the candidate must also indicate Roll Number, Registration Number, Question Booklet Series at the space provided in the OMR Answer Sheet. This apart, the question booklet that was provided to the candidates also contained important instructions on the first page and the lase page. These instructions have been reproduced above. The last page also provided in detail the manner of filling the entries relating to Registration Number, Roll Number, Question Booklet Series and the language attempted. In fact, a sample registration number was indicated to highlight the manner in which the entries were required to be filled. The same set of instructions were contained in the OMR Answer Sheets. Thus, instructions were repeatedly given to the candidates during the process of filling the application form ONLINE in the Admit Card and at the time of examination regarding the manner in which the entries were required to be filled in the OMR Answer Sheet.
It is keeping in mind the aforesaid information provided to the candidates that the Court has to examine whether the candidates can insist, even if they have not accurately filled the Roll Number, Registration Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted that the mistakes should be ignored and the Examining Body should conduct a manual check of their OMR Answer Sheet with the information provided by them earlier so that the results can be declared.
Dealing with an identical challenge in respect of this very recruitment a learned Judge of the Court in Soni Prajapti Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others10 held:-
"The instructions provided to the candidates were clear and specific. Even if there was a human error, but since the examination was taken OMR sheet and the information regarding Question Booklet Series was to be provided by darkening the corresponding circle on the OMR sheet and having regard to the fact that evaluation of answer sheets was to be done by electronic scanning device, which was duly communicated to the candidate in advance, the grievance now raised could not be considered. There would be large number of other candidates having same or similar grievances, in which also same relief would have to be granted thereby derailing the entire process. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find it a fit case to interfere at this stage in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution."
It is thus manifest that a whole body of precedent on this oft repeated prayer of rectification in online forms has come to govern the field. The principal considerations which appear to have weighed with the Court in deciding against the petitioners in those matters were the caveats and notes of caution which placed candidates on prior notice of such a plea not being liable to be entertained, the specter of the entire selection process being stalled or even derailed. But Courts laid equal if not far greater emphasis on the need to ensure certainty and closure being accorded to selection proceedings in respect of posts under the State. That is exactly the sentiment voiced in Ran Vijay Singh and Vikesh Kumar Gupta by the Supreme Court.
On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid discussion the Court comes to the following conclusions. A permission to rectify and amend entries made in the online applications would be clearly impermissible in light of the caveats carried in the advertisements and notices issued by the respondents as well as the declarations made by the candidates themselves while participating in the recruitment process. It would not only be iniquitous but also detrimental to public interest to command the respondents to permit rectifications at the fag end of a recruitment exercise which commenced in December 2018. The stipulations contained in the advertisements and notices issued were never assailed by the petitioners prior to participating in the recruitment process. It would be unfair not just to the respondents but to the other selected candidates to now accord them such permission which would necessarily result in the selection process being stalled and derailed. This Court as well as the Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that such a course being tread would be wholly unfair and unwarranted. The Court repels the challenge to the Government Order of 4 December 2020 being contrary to the mandate of Rule 14. It also negatives its challenge on the ground of being discriminatory or unfair.
These petitions shall consequently stand disposed of with liberty to the State respondents to evaluate the case of each of the petitioners before this Court in light of the Government Order dated 4 December 2020.
Order Date :-14.12.2020 LA/-, faraz/ Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)