Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Kuntal And 19 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 30 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140202 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12474 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Kuntal And 19 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10873 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manish Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14746 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15118 of 2021 Petitioner :- Roshan Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18428 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pritam Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1258 of 2022 Petitioner :- Bal Bihari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5366 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20551 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed in the month of August, 2020 with regard to petitioner nos.1 to 18, in June 2020 with regard to petitioner no.19 and in September, 2020 with regard to petitioner no.20 (Annexure nos.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 & 28),
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to undertake the follow up procedure for selection of the petitioners for appointment as Constable pursuance to Advertisement dated 14.01.2018."
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by advertisement dated 14.01.2018, the respondents invited applications for the post of Constables, total number of 41520. Pursuant to the advertisment, the petitioners submitted their applications and they were allotted roll numbers. When their names did not reflect in the final select list, they approached this Court along with others and filed several writ petitions which are mentioned in paragraph no.32 of the writ petition. That reads as under:
32. That the petitioner No.18 filed Writ-A No. 16102 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar Yadav and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & Others); petitioner No. 19 filed Writ-A No. 11619 of 2019 (Vishnu Kumar and Another vs. State of UP. & Others) which were allowed by judgments dated 01.11.2019 & 02.08.2019 by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. and the petitioner No.20 filed Writ -A No. 18147 of 2019 (Ram Kumar Singh and 9 Others vs. State of U.P. & Others) which was allowed by judgment dated 21.11.2019 by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. True copies judgment dated 01.11.2019 passed in Writ -A No. 16102 of 2019, the judgment dated 02.08.2019 passed in Writ -A No. 11619 of 2019 passed by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. and judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed in Writ -A. No. 18147 of 2019 passed by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. are being annexed and marked as ANNEXURE NO.3, 4 & 5 to this writ petition.
4. Initially, Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 Pradeep Kumar Kuntal and 65 others Vs. State of U.P. and 12 others was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.10.2019 with the direction as follows:
"9. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is disposed of with following orders:-
(i) Writ petition at the instance of those petitioners, who have secured marks below the cut off in their respective category stands dismissed.
(ii) So far as petitioner nos.15, 47, 58, 61 and 63 is concerned, the petitioners shall be at liberty to represent their grievance before the respondents annexing all materials to show that they had taken part in the physical standard test and document verification, which shall be got examined, and an appropriate reasoned order would be passed in respect of said petitioners.
(iii) Petitioners, who have not been able to qualify physical standard test cannot have any grievance with regard to denial of selection to them and the writ petition at their instance fails and is dismissed.
(iv) Petitioner nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 39, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 62, 65 and 66, who have been non-suited on account of mismatch between their thumb impression on the admitted documents vis-a-vis thumb impression obtained on the date of document verification etc., would be informed of the materials that exist against them in respect of respondents' plea that petitioners have indulged in impersonation. Such intimation would be given to them, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Petitioners in that regard would have an opportunity to submit their reply annexing materials that they intent to rely upon in support of their claim. The authorities shall get the matter examined and would pass an appropriate order, within a further period of two months, thereafter. While taking such decision, the authorities would keep in mind the observations made by this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh (supra)."
5. Pursuant to the above directions, the respondents have issued notices to the petitioners in different dates and finally rejected the claim of the petitioners in the month of June, 2020, August, 2020 and September 2020.
6. The said impugned orders were assailed before this Court in bunch of the writ petitions mainly contending that the respondents have not followed specific directions issued by this Court in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 dated 18.10.2019 and the petitioners have made clear assertions in paragraph no.41 of the writ petition that reads below:
"41. That it is specifically stated that no such direction contained in paragraph 9 (iv) of the judgment dated 18.10.2019 in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 has been complied with. It is specifically stated that the respondent authorities never furnished any material, i.e. expert report on the basis of which they have arrived to a conclusion of impersonation and never sought reply on the basis of those materials"
7. In reply to the above said paragraph in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents at paragraph no.8, have denied the allegations which reads as follows:
"8. That the contents of paragraphs 39 to 48 of the writ petition are not admitted and in reply thereto it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court directed to provide materials collected against them and to give opportunity to file their reply. It is relevant to mention here during the different phase of examination of Direct Recruitment-2018, the photographs of the petitioners and their finger prints were taken which were not matching and as such their matter has been sent to the Finger Print Bureau, U.P., Lucknow for an expert opinion/report after having examined the same. In this context some of the petitioners have their representation in which most they have prayed for deciding their matter in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 18.10.2019 but they have not furnished any cogent documents and evidence in support of their case. In this matter, a high level committee has been constituted by the Board and the said committee has examined the case of the petitioners by perusing the report of expert and other materials available on record and the petitioners were also personally summoned to produce their defence. After consideration and deliberation, the committee has found that the photographs and finger prints of the petitioners taken at the time of examination was not matching and they were found different with each other, as such the aforesaid committee has recommended for rejecting the representation of the petitioners and accordingly, the representation and candidature of the petitioners have been cancelled in accordance with law. Copy of the order of the Board, is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 to the present counter affidavit."
8. Based on the above averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the petitioners have made specific assertions of not providing material/documents which are existing against the petitioners on the allegation of mismatch of thumb impression is not only contrary to the specific directions issued in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 but also contrary to the basic principles of nature justice. He further submitted that para 9(iv) of the directions in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 clearly indicates that the petitioners who have been non-selected on account of mismatch between their thumb impression on the admitted documents vis-a-vis thumb impression obtained on the date of document verification etc., would be informed of the materials that exist against them in respect of respondents' plea that petitioners have indulged in impersonation. But admittedly, on perusal of paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit dated 21.06.2021, filed by the respondents, discloses that the respondents had not provided any material which are basis for the respondents to come to a conclusion that the petitioners' thumb impression is not matching with the records.
9. Thus, on the ground of non-specific assertion in the counter affidavit, one more opportunity was granted to the respondents to file additional affidavit. The respondents have filed 2nd supplementary counter affidavit on 09.02.2022. They have also not made any specific assertion with regard to supply of the material, more specifically report of Finger Print Bureau, Lucknow. Based on the above facts, learned Senior Counsel has stressed his argument that the respondents have strictly not followed the directions issued by this Court in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019, dated 18.10.2019. Moreso, when the respondents obtained expert opinion/report, without providing the said documents, they issued show cause notice is illegal and untenable in the eye of law. Also, the impugned orders have been passed without complying with the directions of this Court.
10. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has advanced his arguments based on averments made in the counter affidavit, more specifically has stated that as directed by this Court, the respondents have implemented the orders in toto and based on the report of Finger Print Bureau, Lucknow, the respondents have issued show cause notices to the petitioners to submit their defence and based on the same, the respondents have passed the impugned order which are not in conformity with the materials on record.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has further contended that all the relevant materials are placed and annexed with supplementary counter affidavit.
12. In fact, as earlier writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to provide all the relevant materials to the affected parties but in the instant case, the respondent have not been able to prove that materials / documents which are relied on by them pursuant to show cause notice were supplied to the petitioners or not and they are not able to prove that the relevant material is supplied. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is contrary to the direction issued by this Court in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 on 18.10.2019. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the instant petitions are set aside.
13. On perusal of the records and also considering of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the fact remains, earlier writ petition namely Writ-A 3312 of 2019 was disposed of by this Court with certain directions to the respondents, more specifically to provide all the relevant material / documents to the affected parties before taking any appropriate action. But in the instant case, on perusal of the documents as well as counter affidavit, it clearly discloses that the respondents have not provided relevant material / documents as directed by this Court in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 on 18.10.2019. Though the respondents have annexed relevant material along with counter affidavit but the said documents were not provided along with show cause notice to the affected parties before passing the impugned orders.
14. In view of the above said circumstances, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned orders are contrary to the directions, more specifically para (iv) of paragraph no.9 of the order passed by this Court in Writ-A No.3312 of 2019 dated 18.10.2019. Hence the impugned orders are quashed.
15. The matter is once again remanded to the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice along with all material / documents to which the respondents are relying against the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of show cause notice, the petitioners shall submit their reply to the respondents within a period of two weeks thereafter. After receipt of the replies, the respondents may pass appropriate orders based on material within a period of four weeks thereafter.
16. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.8.2024 rkg