Allahabad High Court
Shivani Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 August, 2022
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19381 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shivani Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 25.8.2021, whereby, acting under directions of this Court passed in Writ A No. 8977 of 2021 for examining the petitioner's representation, the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Board, (respondent no. 2), by means of the impugned order, has rejected her representation and her request that, in view of her pregnancy, her physical examination be done after a period of six months.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an Advertisement No. P.R.B.- 1(138) 2018 for recruitment of police constables for the year 2018 was issued, pursuant to which, the petitioner applied. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and was issued a provisional admit card for verification of the documents/physical standard test directing the petitioner to be present on 13.1.2020 for document verification, which was done on 13.1.2020. However, for the physical test, she was directed to appear on 19.1.2020, on which date she could not appear due to her advanced stage of pregnancy and by means of an application dated 18.1.2020 she sought six months time for the physical test. It is further stated that the petitioner appeared on 19.1.2020 for physical test but being at an advanced stage of pregnancy she moved an application with the concerned respondent that she is unable to participate in the physical test and she may be allowed six months time for her physical test. It is stated that since the physical test of the petitioner was not conducted, the petitioner filed Writ-A No. 8977 of 2021 which came to be disposed of by means of the order dated 03.8.2021, whereafter, the impugned order was passed. It is contended that as per the own case of the respondents, the petitioner was entitled to appear in the physical test after a period of six months.
In compliance of the previous order of this Court, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted fresh instructions sent by the respondent no. 2. A perusal of the instructions reveal that 49,568 posts were advertised and the results of the final selection were declared on 2.3.2020. It has further been stated that after the declaration of the final results, no date for physical test can be prescribed. It would be appropriate to recount the instructions as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel:
"उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस भर्ती एवं प्रोन्नति बोर्ड 19 सी, तुलसी गंगा कॉम्पलेक्स, विधानसभा मार्ग, लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रदेश- 226001 दूरभाष- 223-0522: फैक्स/5752 फैक्स-0522- 2235806 Web-www.uppbpb.gov.in पत्र संख्याः पीआरपीबी-आर-852/2021 दिनांकःजुलाई29, 2022 सेवा में, मुख्य स्थायी अधिवक्ता, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद।
विषयः- रिट याचिका संख्या-ए-19381/2021 शिवानी दुबे बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 7.7.2022 के अनुपालन में विशिष्ट निर्देश दाखिल किये जाने के संबंध में।
------------
कृपया उपरोक्त वर्णित रिट याचिका के संबंध में विशिष्ट निर्देश तैयार कर दाखिल करने हेतु भेजा जा रहा है।
2- अतः अनुरोध है कि उपरोक्त रिट याचिका में विशिष्ट निर्देश के आधार पर बोर्ड का पक्ष प्रस्तुत करते हुये इस याचिका को निस्तारित कराने का कष्ट करें।
संलग्नकः- यथोपरि।
ह०अप० 29/7/2022 अपर सचिव, भर्ती उ०प्र० पुलिस भर्ती एवं प्रोन्नति बोर्ड, लखनऊ।
प्रतिलिपिः- अपर मुख्य सचिव, गृह, उ०प्र० शासन, लखनऊ को कृपया सूचनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु सादर प्रेषित है।
प्रतिलिपिः- पुलिस अधीक्षक, फतेहपुर को सूचनार्थ एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित है।
रिट याचिका संख्या-ए-19381/2021 शिवानी दुबे बनाम उ०प्र०राज्य व अन्य में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 7.7.2022 के अनुपालन में उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस भर्ती एवं प्रोन्नति बोर्ड द्वारा विशिष्ट निर्देश।
-----------
उपरोक्त रिट याचिका में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा दिनांक 7.7.2022 को निम्न आदेश पारित किया गया हैः-
"Learned Standing Counsel shall seek specific instructions from the Secretary, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow with regard to the contents of Paragraph nos.4 & 5 of his order dated 25.08.2021 where it is not clear whether the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2021 was taken into account or she was given additional time or communicated a fresh date for physical efficiency test. It is also not clear whether any communication at all was made yet with regard to maximum time that can be availed of by her or last opportunity fixing a date for fixing efficiency test.
List this matter on 25.07.2022, as fresh. "
2- उपरोक्त आदेश के अनुपालन में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद को सादर निम्नवत स्थिति स्पष्ट की जाती हैः-
(क) भर्ती बोर्ड के आदेश दिनांकित 25.08.2021 के प्रस्तर-4 में याची के प्रत्यावेदन दिनांकित 18.01.2020 के संबंध में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि इस प्रत्यावेदन में याची द्वारा शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा हेतु निर्धारित तिथि दिनांक 19.01.2020 को गर्भवती होने के कारण दौडने में असमर्थ रहने का तथ्य अंकित करते हुए 06 माह का अतिरिक्त समय प्रदान किए जाने का अनुरोध किया गया था। चूंकि शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा अन्तिम रूप से दिनांक 29.01.2020 को सम्पन्न की गयी थी और अन्तिम चयन परिणाम दिनांक 2.3.2020 को प्राख्यापित किया गया था अतः याची को दिनांक- 19.01.2020 से 06 माह का अतिरिक्त अवसर प्रदान करने का तात्पर्य यह था कि इस अभ्यर्थी मात्र के लिए शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा दिनांक 19.07.2020 तक प्रचलित रखी जाती, जो चयन प्रक्रिया को निर्धारित समय में पूर्ण करने के कारण सम्भव नहीं था, अतः याची को 06 माह का अतिरिक्त समय प्रदान नहीं किया जा सकता था और यह भी कि दिनांक 29.01.2020 से पूर्व याची की शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा की तिथि भी उसके अनुरोध के आलोक में निश्चित नहीं की जा सकती थी।
यहॉ यह भी उल्लेखनीय है कि मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा रिट याचिका संख्या-ए-8977/2021 शिवानी दुबे बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य में पारित आदेश दिनांकित-3.8.2021, जिसकी छायाप्रति संलग्नक-1 रूप में संलग्न है, के अनुपालन में याची का प्रत्यावेदन दिनांक- 18.01.2020 का निस्तारण आदेश, जो भर्ती बोर्ड द्वारा दिनांक 25.08.2021 को जारी किया गया था, इसके प्रस्तर-4 व 5 में पूर्णतया स्पष्ट करते हुये यह उल्लेख कर दिया गया था कि याची का प्रत्यावेदन दिनांंकित 18.01.2020 नियमों के अधीन स्वीकार योग्य नहीं है तथा इस तथ्य से याची को अवगत कराया गया था। इस तथ्य के साक्ष्य के रूप में आदेश दिनांकित 25.08.2021 की छाया प्रति, जिस पर याची के पिता के प्राप्ति के हस्ताक्षर अंकित है, संलग्नक-2 के रूप में संलग्न है।
उक्त सन्दर्भ में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा रिट याचिका संख्या-ए-7204/2021 प्रिया बनाम उ०प्र०राज्य व अन्य में दिनांक 16.09.2021 को पारित निर्णय का निम्न अंश अवलोकनीय हैः-
".........It becomes pertinent to bear in mind that the Commission was undertaking a mammoth recruitment exercise for appointment of Excise Constables. The recruitment itself was for filling up 405 vacancies in the cadre of Excise Constables. In connection with the aforesaid recruitment, the Commission received as many as 4900 applications. While the circumstance of the petitioner being unable to participate in the Physical Examination Test on account of her pregnancy is unfortunate, that cannot lead to this Court being convinced to command the Commission to reopen the entire selection process which has already concluded. If such individual prayers were to be entertained, it would result in a large scale public recruitment exercise being derailed. Consequently, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for.
Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed."
उक्त निर्णय की छाया प्रति संलग्नक-3 के रूप में संलग्न है।
उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रश्नगत भर्ती आरक्षी नागरिक पुलिस एवं आरक्षी प्रादेशिक आर्म्ड कान्सटेबुलरी के पदों पर सीधी भर्ती-अक्टूबर, 2018 के अन्तर्गत 49,568 विज्ञापित पदों के सापेक्ष चयन प्रक्रिया सम्पन्न की जा रही थी।
(ख)- उत्तर प्रदेश पुलिस भर्ती बोर्ड के आदेश दिनांकित 25.08.2021 के प्रस्तर-5 के संबंध में यह स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि चयन प्रक्रिया में अन्तिम चयन परिणाम दिनांक 2.3.2020 को घोषित किया जा चुका था और भर्ती के नियमों के अन्तर्गत अन्तिम चयन परिणाम घोषित करने के पश्चात याची को शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा हेतु कोई तिथि प्रदान नहीं की जा सकती थी।
(ग)- मा०उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष यह कथन भी किया जाता है कि शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा में अनुपस्थित रहने एवं अन्य तिथि प्रदान करने के अनुरोध के अनुक्रम में भर्ती बोर्ड द्वारा शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा की अन्तिम तिथि तक यथासम्भव अभ्यर्थियों को सम्मिलित होने हेतु अन्य तिथि प्रदान करने पर विचार किया जाता है, परन्तु भर्ती बोर्ड शारीरिक दक्षता परीक्षा की अन्तिम तिथि के पश्चात 06 माह की तिथि अथवा ऐसी अव्यवहारिक तिथि प्रदान करने हेतु भर्ती के नियमों के अन्तर्गत बाध्य नहीं है, जिससे कि पूरी चयन प्रक्रिया अनिश्चित रूप से विलम्बित हो जाए।
(घ)- मा० सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या 1924/2010 शंकर मण्डल बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य व अन्य में दिनांक 15.02.2022 को निम्नवत टिप्पणी भी अवलोकनीय है-
".... In our view, in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, however may be the genuineness of the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment."
(ड)- मा० सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या 6860/2021 उ०प्र०राज्य व अन्य बनाम पंकज कुमार में भी दिनांक 18.11.2021 को पारित निर्णय में निम्नवत उल्लेख किया है-
"...In any event, though indulgence was shown in the earlier cases, a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a time line and the next recruitment process will also get effected since determination of the number of vacancies for the next process will keep fluctuating."
3- उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आलोक में मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद से अनुरोध है कि याची की रिट याचिका भर्ती के नियमों के अन्तर्गत एवं व्यवहारिक रूप से भी ग्राहय न होने के कारण निरस्त करने की कृपा की जाए।
ह०अप० ह०अप० ह०अप० 28/7/22 28/7/2022 28/7/22 (शहंशाह आलम) (राकेश बाबू) अनुसचिव (भर्ती) सहायक उ०नि०(एम) अनुभाग अधिकारी-भर्ती उ०प्र०पुलिस भर्ती एवं प्रोन्नति बोर्ड, उ०प्र०पुलिस भर्ती एवं प्रोन्नति बोर्ड, लखनऊ।" लखनऊ।
It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court reflected in the judgement dated 16.9.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 7204 of 2021 (Priya Vs. State of U.P. and another), in which, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the Commission.
The grievance of the petitioner is of the respondents having failed to process her candidature further consequent to her absence in the Physical Examination Test which was conducted for the purposes of appointment of Excise Constables. It becomes pertinent to note that the Physical Examination Test were initially to be conducted between 16 February to 19 March 2021. By the subsequent notice of 18 March 2021, those candidates who had been unable to participate, were granted one more opportunity to appear on 20 March and to take part in the Physical Examination Test that was to be conducted.
Submission of learned counsel was that since the petitioner was in the family way at the relevant time, she could not appear in the Physical Examination Test and that even though the respondents were duly apprised of this fact, no consideration was accorded to the condition of the petitioner. Additionally, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner also does not find mention in the list of absentees which has been appended to the notice of 18 March 2021.
The entire case of the petitioner rests on an alleged representation dated 12 February 2021 which stands placed at page 33 of the paper book. However, it becomes relevant to note that there is no evidence appended along with the writ petition which may establish that the same had been duly dispatched on 12 February 2021 or got served upon the respondents. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the grievance of the petitioner is liable to be considered.
It becomes pertinent to bear in mind that the Commission was undertaking a mammoth recruitment exercise for appointment of Excise Constables. The recruitment itself was for filling up 405 vacancies in the cadre of Excise Constables. In connection with the aforesaid recruitment, the Commission received as many as 4900 applications. While the circumstance of the petitioner being unable to participate in the Physical Examination Test on account of her pregnancy is unfortunate, that cannot lead to this Court being convinced to command the Commission to reopen the entire selection process which has already concluded. If such individual prayers were to be entertained, it would result in a large scale public recruitment exercise being derailed. Consequently, the Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for.
Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed."
Under the circumstances and given the fact that the final results of the selection as advertised in the advertisement of 2018, were declared on 2.3.2020, the prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondent no. 2 to conduct the petitioner's physical test examination at this stage is unwarranted and without merit.
It is pertinent to mention here that though the respondents have not denied receipt of the representation dated 18.1.2020 of the petitioner seeking time of six months for appearing for the physical test, that would have necessarily meant keeping the entire process of recruitment for filling up of 49,568 posts in abeyance till at least 19.7.2020 for the sake of solely accommodating the petitioner who, no doubt unfortunately, could not give her physical test on 19.1.2020. The difficulty and transgression, if any, faced by the petitioner and her right to be treated fairly would have to capitulate and yield to the rights of the vast number of candidates seeking early finalization of the recruitment process.
Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order impugned dated 25.8.2021. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022 A. V. Singh (Jayant Banerji, J.)