Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rahul Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee, Ajay Rastogi
1
ITEM NO.45+46+47+48+49+50+51+12+20 Court 3 (VC) SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 378/2021
RAHUL KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 52456/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 55844/2021 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 56058/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 52458/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 43370/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 56056/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 55849/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 55842/2021 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 56055/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 394/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.44762/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
W.P.(C) No. 403/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.45844/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
W.P.(C) No. 411/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.46470/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
W.P.(C) No. 409/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.46320/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
W.P.(C) No. 421/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.47610/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
ITEM NO.46
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 420/2021
(IA No. 61503/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 61504/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 47430/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2021.07.03
WITH
11:26:08 IST
Reason:
W.P.(C) No. 466/2021 (X)
(IA No. 54330/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
2
ITEM NO.47
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 441/2021
(IA No. 50975/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
ITEM NO.48
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 450/2021
(IA No. 51708/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
ITEM NO.49
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 10734/2021 in W.P.(C) No.
No. 322/2021
(IA No. 56237/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 56235/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 56233/2021 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER)
ITEM NO.50
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 544/2021
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.61815/2021-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA
No.61814/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.61813/2021-
EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 548/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.61864/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. and IA No.61863/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA
No.61865/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
W.P.(C) No. 546/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.61837/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and
IA No.61836/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA
No.61838/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
ITEM NO.51
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 677/2021
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.70722/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and
IA No.70721/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA
No.70723/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
ITEM NO.12
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 633/2021
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.66992/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and
IA No.66993/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS )
WITH
W.P.(C) No. 429/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.49399/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
3
ITEM NO.20
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 667/2021
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.69983/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and
IA No.69978/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT and IA
No.69982/2021-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION )
WITH
Diary No(s). 9460/2021 (XI)
( IA No.69041/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.69042/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA
No.69040/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) and IA
No.69043/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Diary No(s). 9736/2021 (XI)
(IA No.68691/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.68692/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA
No.68690/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) and IA
No.68693/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Diary No(s). 9586/2021 (XI)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.68514/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.68515/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.68513/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION
(SLP/TP/WP/..) and IA No.68516/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
W.P.(C) No. 665/2021 (X)
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.69815/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and
IA No.69818/2021-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)
Date : 29-06-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
4
For Respondent(s) Mr. PS Patwalia, SR. ADV.
Mr. RK Singh, Adv.
Ms. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. Gauravjit S. Patwalia, Adv.
Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Permission to file special leave petition(s) is granted.
1. The Assistant Teachers’ Recruitment Examination, 2019 was held to fill up 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers in the State of Uttar Pradesh. All the present petitioners who had offered their candidature for said selection, committed certain mistakes while filling up their on-line application forms.
2. The issues concerning such mistakes committed by the candidates and the consequences, were dealt with by certain Government Orders and Circulars.
3. Government Order dated 04.12.2020 (‘the G.O.’, for short) dealt with as many as 21 points of discrepancies which could possibly have crept in while filling up online application forms by the candidates. Point No.2 of said G.O. is of some relevance and is being quoted hereunder for facility:
“Point No.2: Discrepancy in the Marks obtained and Total marks of High School, Intermediate, Graduation, Training and to the total marks and marks obtained received from the excel sheet of the candidate. In relation to the above type of discrepancies following action to be taken has been decided:-5
1. If a candidate has filed less marks than marks obtained, then from such candidate sufficient documentary evidence for filing less marks should be sought. After receiving such relevant basis and being satisfied therefrom a declaration should be sought from the candidate that he is satisfied from the selection at less marks as filled by him and that in future he will not demand a change in merit on more marks.
Because there will not be any change in the merit, consequently appointment letter should be issued to the candidate.
2. If a candidate has filled more Total marks than the Total marks in the original mark-sheet, then from such candidate sufficient documentary evidence for filing more Total marks should be sought. After receiving such whole basis and being satisfied therefrom a declaration should be sought from the candidate that he is satisfied from the selection at total marks and that in future he will not demand a change in merit on original/less marks. Because there will not be any change in the merit, consequently appointment letter should be issued to the candidate.
3. Such candidates who in their in the application form under academic qualification have filled more marks than marks obtained, in relation to this it is notable that because a merit is decided on the marks obtained mentioned by the candidate hence if the candidate is selected on the original less marks then the merit will be changed. Resultantly whole merit list will be changed. The intention behind filling more marks than obtained can be for selection anyhow, in addition to the above, order dated 18.11.2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentions that the appointment process should be completed on the basis of the Merit List published earlier. In respect of the above mentioned order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court any type of change in the Selection list/Merit List will not be suitable. Resultantly selection of such candidates is to be cancelled.
4. Such candidates who in their application form under academic qualification have filled lesser Total marks than the original Total marks, in relation to this it is notable that because a merit is decided on the marks obtained mentioned by the candidate hence if the candidate is selected on the original Total marks then the merit will be changed. Resultantly whole merit list will be changed. The intention behind filing less marks than original total marks can be for selection anyhow, in addition to the above, order dated 18.11.2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentions that the appointment process should be completed on the basis of the Merit List published earlier. In respect of the above mentioned order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court any type of change in the Selection list/Merit List will not be suitable. Resultantly selection of such candidates is to be cancelled.”
a) Thus, under Para 1 of the aforesaid Point No.2, if a candidate had filled lesser marks than what he had actually obtained, a declaration would be sought from such candidate that he would be satisfied with such lesser marks filled up by him and that he would not demand any change in merit in 6 future.
b) Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Point No.2 dealt with cases where total marks available for the examination were filled up by the candidate wrongly at an increased level. Even in such cases, a declaration in terms of paragraph 2 could be sought from the candidate.
c) An illustration may clarify the applicability of these paragraphs. If a candidate had obtained 400 marks out of total marks of 500 (i.e. 80%) and by mistake had filled up 390 marks instead of 400 marks as obtained by him (i.e. 78%), such cases would be covered under paragraph 1 of the G.O. At the same time, if instead of 500, the candidate had filled up 600 being the total marks for the examination (the resultant effect being, his percentage would be 66.66%), the case would be considered under paragraph 2 of the G.O. In both the cases, the candidate had projected himself at a disadvantage than his rightful entitlement. Thus, wherever a candidate would be at a disadvantage, the appropriate declaration could be taken from the candidate and his candidature could still be considered at such disadvantaged level as projected; the reason being that the candidate could never be said to have secured any gain or benefit, if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed.
4. Subsequently, the State issued Government Circular dated 7 05.03.2021 (‘the Circular’, for short) which further elaborated paragraph 1 of Point No.2 as stated above. The relevant portion of the Circular was to the following effect:
“2. In continuation of the recommendations dated 13-12-2020 of the Committee which were brought to your notice vide the letter dated 15-01-2021, the opinion of the legal and personnel department were sought. On the basis of the recommendations of the legal and personnel department, the following have been decided to be acted upon:-
(1) In context of Recommendations of the Committee at Point-1 in reference to more marks mentioned:-
The candidates who has submitted the application form on the basis of certificate/marksheet available with them and had mentioned more marks but the marks were subsequently changed after scrutiny/re-evaluation/back-paper by the university/issuing authority on its own, those candidates cannot be held to be responsible for changing or wrongfully mentioning marks in the application form as they did not have any option but to fill the marks mentioned in the certificate/marksheet available with them at the relevant time of filing-up of the application form. Such candidate, if they have obtained more quality points than the last candidate selected in the category in the district, then he/shall be given the appointment letter in that district. If any such candidate has lesser quality points than the last candidate selected in a particular district but more than the quality point than the last selected candidate in that category in the state list then the details of such candidate shall be provided to the administration by the Director, Basic Education. Further actions will be taken in that regard by the administration.
Where a candidate, without any documentary basis, has mentioned more marks than what he has obtained or has mentioned less maximum marks than what the actual was, his/her selection/candidature shall be cancelled.”
a) According to the Circular, wherever more marks were claimed as a result of subsequent changes after scrutiny/ re-evaluation/back-paper by the university/issuing authority “on its own”, the candidate could not be held responsible for discrepancy or wrongful mentioning of the marks and a benefit was therefore sought to be conferred upon the candidate which was not contemplated by the G.O.
b) The last part of the quoted portion of the Circular 8 emphasized that where a candidate had mentioned “more marks” than what he had actually obtained or had mentioned “lesser maximum marks” than what the total marks for the examination in question were allocated, the selection/candidature of the candidate would stand cancelled.
c) The underlying principle, therefore, is quite evident that by quoting more marks than what the candidate had actually obtained or by specifying lesser total marks for the examination than those allocated for the examination, the candidate would essentially be claiming an advantage to which he was not entitled, in case the discrepancy were to go unnoticed.
5. The present petitions arise from cases where all the candidates had committed mistakes while filling up their application forms. Some had projected themselves at a disadvantaged position as explained above while in some cases the situation was to the contrary.
6. We have heard Mr. Amit Pawan and Mr. Anand Nandan, learned Advocates for the Petitioners, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate for applicant seeking impleadment and Mr. Harish Pandey, learned Advocate for the State.
7. We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear that 9 wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form.
These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above.
8. It must however be stated here that the authorities are not strictly following the intent of the G.O. and the Circular. For example, the Office Order dated 28.03.2021 issued by the Basic Teacher Education Officer, District Hardoi, shows cancellation of the candidature of one Raghav Sharan Singh at Serial No.4, though the projection of marks by way of mistake by said candidate was to his disadvantage. Logically, said candidate would be entitled to have his candidature considered and reckoned at the disadvantaged level. The record shows that even with such disadvantage, the candidate was entitled to be selected.
10
9. We have given this illustration only by way of an example. The authorities shall do well to consider every such order issued by them and cause appropriate corrections or modifications in the light of conclusions stated above.
10. With these clarifications, the instant petitions are disposed of.
Pending applications, including miscellaneous application also stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER