Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India And 4 Others on 13 January, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20223 of 2016 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Singh,Gyan Prakash Singh,Satish Kumar Rai,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gyan Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 13.1.2016 passed by third respondent, whereby he has been discharged as Constable in Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner on the post of Constable-General duty (GD) in RPSF.
The petitioner was selected on the post of Constable (GD) in RPSF under OBC category after qualifying the examination pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2011 dated 23.2.2011 issued by I.G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, North Eastern Railway (NER), Gorakhpur. After the selection the petitioner has undergone necessary training from 1.11.2014 to 19.6.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the examination in 07 subjects in which the petitioner was declared failed in two subjects. Thereafter, the petitioner again undergone training for one month and thereafter again appeared in the examination in which he was declared failed in one subject. As such he was discharged from his services by the order impugned dated 13.1.2016. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled for one more attempt to appear in the examination but the same has been denied to the petitioner.
It is contended that so far as petitioner is concerned, admittedly he failed in two subjects out of seven subjects and as such another opportunity was extended to him. Eventually he again failed in one subject and a such he was discharged from service. However, as per amended Rules 65 (3) of the Railway Protection Force (Amended) Rules, 2013 the candidates are entitled for three attempts after initial training.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has contended that as per Rule 65 (3) second attempt should be provided to those candidate, (i) who failed in one subject by maximum of 10 marks; (ii) who failed in two subjects with maximum of 5 marks in each subject or (iii) who failed in any course by aggregate 10 marks, to appear for that subject or course in such manner as may be specified by the Director General or the Chief Security Commissioner concerned. Rule 65.4 provides that on failure in first attempt or where the candidate is eligible for second attempt on failure of second attempt the candidate shall be discharged from service without notice or to be reverted to his substantive rank. So far as amended Rules 65 (3) is concerned, third attempt is provided only to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and the petitioner being the OBC candidates is not entitled for third attempt.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that the petitioner being OBC candidate admittedly failed in second attempt and as per the aforesaid provisions, which are mandatory in nature, the petitioner is not entitled for third attempt. Once the Rules are unambiguous and the petitioner being OBC candidates failed in second attempt, this Court cannot come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2020 SP/