Allahabad High Court
Praveen Baghel vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 July, 2023
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139797 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9486 of 2023 Petitioner :- Praveen Baghel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. This matter has come by assignment to me under the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.07.2023.
2. Heard Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri F.A. Ansari, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the entire selection on the ground that even he had given preference in the post of Process Server, Orderly, Chowkidar and last choice was Sweeper and yet has been offered appointment to a post of his last choice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been shown the marks and if he has secured marks as the last cut off marks for the post of Chowkidar or higher post, he stands discriminated.
5. Sri F.A. Ansari, learned Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents submits that he has obtained instructions both from the National Testing Agency (NTA) and also the Registrar (Judicial) (Budget) who deals with the centralized selection and recruitment of Group-C and Group-D employees of the district Judgeships and as per the instructions the last cut off marks for the post of Process Server in the OBC category was 178, for the post of Orderly in the OBC category was 164, for the post of Chowkidar in the OBC category was 162. The petitioner of course has gained 162 marks and matches the last cut off marks in the OBC category for the post of Chowkidar but since his case fell in tie with another candidate in the OBC category who had also obtained 162 marks, therefore, applying the 'tie breaking rule', the other candidate, being senior in age has been offered appointment as Chowkidar. He submits, therefore, the petitioner having not been successful in applying the above rules, has been offered appointment on the post of Sweeper. He further submits that the selection and recruitment Committee of the High Court has rejected the representation made by the petitioner.
6. The decision of the Committee dated 30.05.2023 that forms part of the instructions is reproduced hereunder:
"... the Committee resolves to reject all such applications as selection process has been conducted fairly and transparently, and the candidates are selected for the respective Group 'D' cadre posts as per their merit and suitability for the position. The non-joining of some selected candidates in the Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- (Group 'D' cadre posts) does not provide a valid reason to adjust the candidates selected for other posts i.e. Sweeper-cum-Farrash against such posts.
Furthermore, adjusting candidates who were not selected for a particular post would be unfair to those who were selected for that post and may not have been selected for the other post. It would also undermine the sanctity of the selection process. It would also create unnecessary administrative burden and delay in completing the joining process.
Therefore, the Committee resolves to rejected all such representations."
7. Copy of the instructions is taken on record.
8. In view of the above, I do not find merit in the petition, petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2023 IrfanUddin