Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Raj vs State Of U.P. & Others on 3 December, 2012
Author: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 31 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42130 of 2008 Petitioner :- Sanjay Raj Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction upon the respondent to grant him admission in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007.
Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the State Government issued an order dated 10.7.2007 which was modified on 13.7.2007 to provide Special B.T.C. Training to the B.Ed. degree holders. In compliance of the aforesaid Government Order the Principal of each District Institute of Education and Training issued advertisements inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for admission to Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007. A copy of the said advertisement is placed on record by petitioner as annexure -6 to the writ petition.
In pursuance of the said advertisement, it is stated that the petitioner submitted his applications in District Gorakhpur, Maharajganj and Sant Kabir Nagar. It is stated that along with the application form, the petitioner had submitted his statement of marks of different educational qualifications. The petitioner has collectively enclosed all the statement of marks as annexure-8 to the writ petition.
It is stated that the petitioner did his Bachelor of Physical Education Examination from Sri Narheri Mahavidyalaya, Narahi, Ballia, affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur which is recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education.
The case of the petitioner is that inadvertently, in the application form, he had given details of the marks of Bachelor of Physical Education Examination by adding the total marks awarded in theory and practical and accordingly specified that he has secured 608 marks out of 800 marks. The said details were mentioned by the petitioner in his application form, as he bonafidely believed that the norms of the Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2004 are also applicable in 2007 Special B.T.C. Training Course. However, subsequently, the petitioner came to know that in Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2007, the total aggregate marks of each of the examination constituting Bachelor of Physical Education was required to be mentioned. Therefore, his correct marks were 1131 out of 1400 marks, but the marks were shown by him as 608 marks out of 800 marks. On account of said mistake, the petitioner's quality point marks became less than cut of marks of which last candidate was selected. According to the petitioner, his marks were 249.90 i.e. above cut of marks.
Learned Standing Counsel has filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that in the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that the percentage of the marks obtained in High School, Intermediate, B.A. and B.Ed. including theory and practical marks aggregate of the percentage will be considered as quality point marks obtained by the petitioner. There was no ambiguity in the advertisement and as such the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is also stated that on the basis of marks mentioned by the petitioner his quality point marks will be 245.11 while the last selected candidate's mark was 246.17 marks and as such there is no illegality.
I have heard Sri Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Sri Khare submitted that the petitioner has secured total 1131 marks and he had annexed all the marksheets along with the application form and as such, the respondents ought to have considered his actual marks of Bachelor of Physical Education Examination which has been ignored by them. The respondents have relied only on the marks mentioned in the application form by the petitioner which has been inadvertently mentioned on the basis of pre-existing norms adopted by the State in respect of Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2004. He further urged that from the mark sheet there was no doubt that the petitioner was above the cut of marks. However, respondents have ignored the actual marks of the petitioner which has caused a serious prejudice to him. In case, there was any human error in the application form, he was entitled for an opportunity to correct the same or the respondents could have ignored the human error, as all the mark sheets were enclosed with the application form.
Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there was no ambiguity in the advertisement However, the petitioner has ignored the clause 10 of the advertisement. However, the facts mentioned by him in the application form has been duly considered and quality point marks have been prepared on the basis of information supplied by him.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
It is trite law that even in the administrative matter, if decision adversely affect a person's legal right or interest, the decision must be taken fairly and reasonably. Even in absence of any provision for giving opportunity the principle of natural justice is in built.
Procedural fairness ( Procedural due process) has received a new meaning after Maneka Gandhi case ( 1978) 1 SCC 248. Denial of natural justice itself is arbitrary and unfair exercise of power. It is true that in case of S.L.Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan ( 1980) 4 SCC 379 and Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529, the Supreme Court has carved out exceptions of Natural Justice and evolved the " useless formality" theory. But exception, as spell out in those cases can not be applied in all cases. In the case at hand, the exception, where on admitted facts only one conclusion is possible, court may not issue futile writ is not applicable. In the present case, an educated young man who is at the threshold of his career has suffered serious prejudice by the impugned action of the respondents.
It is true that in the advertisement a clear method for calculation of the marks is mentioned. The petitioner, it appears, that inadvertently ignored the said clause of advertisement. He had mentioned his marks on the basis of existing norms applicable in the years 2004 in Special B.T.C. Training Course. However, it is equally true that he has enclosed all the mark sheets along with his application form. While, calculating the marks, the authority concerned ought to have ignored the mistake of the petitioner or a notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner giving an opportunity to correct the obvious human error committed by him in filing up the form. One of the requirements was to enclose all the necessary documents and mark sheets. Statements of the marks in marksheet are final not the entry in application form. While filing the form human error can not be completely ruled out, especially, from inexperienced young candidates. They should not be penalized so harshly for such error. A candidate whose marks are above cut of marks and is in merit list, deserves an opportunity before his candidature is rejected only on some error. There was no element of misrepresentation and petitioner would not get any benefit for his act.
This Court, in the case of Kavita Rani Vs. State of U.P. and others, [ 2008 (4) ESC 2762 (All)], has held that in case there is any human error, in that event, it should be ignored. Likewise view has been taken in Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 83 AIR 1992(All). That was also a case of Special B.T.C. Training. The candidate therein had also mentioned wrong marks in the form. The court held that it was mere human error and was due to inadvertent mistake. There was no intention to gain anything by wrongly reflecting in application form.
For the said reason stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
A direction is issue upon the respondent no. 3 to give an opportunity to the petitioner to correct the error of the marks in form and prepare a fresh merit list of the petitioner, in case he has obtains the marks above the cut of marks, then a consequential order may be passed within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.12.2012/Gss