Allahabad High Court
Ahmad Jamal Khan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others on 16 April, 2025
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55800-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 209 of 2025 Appellant :- Ahmad Jamal Khan Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raghvendra Shankar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. This special appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed as having become infructuous vide following orders:-
"In pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent has obtained instruction, which is taken on record. On the strength of the affidavit, he submits that the process of appointment has been done and the proceedings are going on with respect to other 13 vacant posts and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said fact.
In view of the above, no cause of action survives.
The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous at this stage."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petition had not been rendered infructuous and that the claim of the appellant has not been accorded consideration on merits by the learned Single Judge.
3. On the previous occasion, this Court had called upon the respondent-commission to file a short counter affidavit clarifying the factual position with regard to the recruitment in question. A short counter affidavit has been filed to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the special appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.
4. Undisputed facts as emerge on record are that recruitment was initiated pursuant to advertisement no.7 of 2019 for the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. The recruitment was to be undertaken by the Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow. The candidates were required to fill up their form and also annex documents to show the respective category to which they belong. In the facts of the present case, the respondent-petitioner also applied for appointment and claimed E.W.S. reservation but alongwith the application form no certificate of the competent authority evidencing his status as E.W.S. was annexed. The authorities based upon the initial written test invited candidates for document verification, wherein the appellant was also called. The appellant even at the stage of document verification did not produce any certificate of E.W.S. In such circumstances, the appellant was treated as an unreserved category candidate. Since the marks scored by the appellant were 48.75 while the cut-off for the unreserved category was 60.50 marks, as such the appellant was not selected.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that an E.W.S. certificate has been issued to him on 17.9.2019 and that the appellant could not produce it as sufficient time was not given for its production. It is also submitted that even otherwise the appellant has scored marks equivalent to the cut-off in the general category and, therefore, even if he was denied consideration as an E.W.S. candidate, the appellant ought to have been treated as an unreserved category candidate and appointed as such.
6. Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent-commission, however, disputes the above submission and submits that though persons with 48 and above marks were called for document verification but ultimately taking into consideration the merit of candidates available the cut-off for the unreserved category has been fixed as 60.50 marks. The respondents alongwith the counter affidavit have also placed on record a duly signed application of the appellant at the time of document verification, wherein he has clearly stated that E.W.S. certificate is not available with him and he is not in a position to produce such certificate even in near future.
7. We have heard Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the commission.
8. From the materials placed on record it is apparent that though the appellant claimed consideration for appointment as an E.W.S candidate but no certificate of the competent authority in that regard was annexed. Such document was also not produced at the time of document verification. The appellant himself has admitted that he is not in a position to produce E.W.S. certificate and that he cannot produce it in near future. This is clearly acknowledged in his own handwriting by the appellant. This self declaration form filled at the time of document verification dated 15.5.2023, is filed alongwith the short counter affidavit and there is no denial of it. The only explanation put forth in the rejoinder affidavit is that the appellant was forced to sign the self declaration form by the authorities as the commission was not intending to consider his claim, otherwise.
9. Be that as it may, it is admitted that neither at the time of filling the application form nor at the time of document verification the E.W.S. certificate has been annexed and placed on record by the appellant. In such circumstances, the commission has not erred in treating him as an unreserved category candidate, particularly when the self attestation form clearly acknowledges the fact that the appellant was not having E.W.S. certificate nor was in a position to produce it in near future. It is otherwise admitted that the cut-off in the general category is 60.50, whereas the appellant's marks are only 48.75. The commission has otherwise stated that all vacancies have been filled. In such circumstances, we find that the appellant is not entitled to any relief on merits and the special appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.4.2025 RA