Allahabad High Court
Vikrama Prasad Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 September, 2019
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15495 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vikrama Prasad Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Kumar Parikshit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of respondents.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the select list dated 8.3.2019 issued by the Secretary, Electricity Service Commission, U.P, Power Corporation, U.P., Lucknow.
The admitted fact of the matter reflected from the record of the writ petition are that the respondents had published the advertisement dated 17.2.2018 for appointment to the post of Technician Grade-II Electric (Trainee), U.P. Power Corporation. The qualifying computer test, online written examination was held on 24.1.2019. As per the advertisement notification, the written examination comprised of two parts; first part was qualifying examination of computer test comprising of 50 marks and the condition was that for a candidate to attain minimum 20 marks or else his question paper for the second part of the examination would not be evaluated. The second part of the written examination comprised of one question paper of four courses, of maximum 200 marks. To qualify second part of the written test, the candidates had to attain minimum 33.5.% marks. It is further clarified in the aforesaid notification that candidates who attain less than 67 marks in the second part of written examination would be ousted from the zone of consideration. The result was declared on 8.3.2019.
Two petitioners herein belong to General and O.B.C category. It is stated in paragraph-'17(j)' of the writ petition that the petitioner no.1 (whose name has wrongly been typed in the table as Rupendra Pal Singh) of general category attained 82 marks in second part of written examination and petitioner no.2 (Kuldeep Singh) of O.B.C category attained 90.131 marks. From the select list dated 8.3.2019 displayed on the Website of the Commission (page '71' of the paper book), it is evident that last unreserved candidate obtained 128.085 marks and in O.B.C. category cutoff mark was 105.051, after normalisation.
There is no challenge to the cutoff marks, rather the submission is that some candidates who obtained less than 20 marks in first part had been wrongly treated as qualified in the written examination and their answer scripts for the second part of the written examination had been checked, so as to include them in the final select list.
The averments in the writ petition regarding alleged irregularities are vague. None of the selected candidate who allegedly had been given wrong benefits by the respondent is impleaded in the writ petition. There is no allegation of malafide. The challenge to the normalisation procedure for preparation of the merit list is not entertainable.
The assertion in the writ petition that in the similar circumstances another writ petition has been entertained and is pending, therefore, cannot be accepted. The reason being that no relief can be granted to the petitioners as they assailed the cut off marks and selection of other candidates who are not party, that too after seven months of declaration of result. The petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot be allowed to turn round to challenge the final select list in a casual manner.
Reference may be made to the judgement of Apex Court in Ashok Kumar & others Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5069.
There is no other ground of challenge the select list.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Harshita