Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 December, 2020
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10921 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pushpendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the records of the case and to quash the Paragraph No.2 (III) of undated guidelines/notification issued by the Respondent no.2 (uploaded on the website on 18.05.2020) to the extent so far as the correction in finally submitted application forms is made impermissible.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to correct the Column no.11."
The admitted case of the petitioner is that he failed to fill in the requisite claim in support of disability benefits being extended to him in the online application form. It is in that context that he seeks permission to assert that claim now.
Dealing with the question of whether rectifications or additions should be permitted in online forms, this Court in Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ-A No. 11079 of 2020 decided on 14.12.2020] after noticing the decisions rendered by the Full Bench, Division Benches of this Court as well as judgments germane to that issue and pronounced by the Supreme Court held thus:-
"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."
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Vivek Kr.