Allahabad High Court
Km. Archana Rastogi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 January, 2012
Bench: R.K. Agrawal, B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 2312 of 2011 Petitioner :- Km. Archana Rastogi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Kshetrsh Chndra Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
(Delivered by Hon.B.Amit Sthalekar,J.) This special appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the order dated 2.11.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, by which his writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 18.5.2011 whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for being sent for Special BTC Training ? 2008, and a direction commanding the respondent no.5, the Principal, District Institute of Education Training (DIET), District Sitapur to permit the petitioner to undergo training in the Special B.T.C. Training-2008 has been dismissed.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.58479 of 2011 challenging the order dated 18.5.2011 passed by the Principal, DIET, District Sitapur rejecting the representation of the petitioner for being sent for training in the Special B.T.C. -2008. From the facts, as narrated in the writ petition, it appears that another writ petition had been filed earlier by the petitioner being writ petition no.32986 of 2010,Km. Archana Rastogi vs. State of U.P. and others seeking a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in B.T.C. (Special) and (General) Training- 2008. The contention of the petitioner at that time was that the petitioner was not being considered for being sent for the Special B.T.C. Training Course on the ground that her degree of B.P.Ed. was from a university situate outside of the State of U.P.. The said writ petition was disposed of by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by order dated 7.7.2010 and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on merit and if she comes within the zone of consideration amongst other candidates on merit, she should be sent for training. When no order was passed by the respondents in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 7.7.2010 the petitioner was constrained to file Civil Misc. Contempt Application no.1508 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 18.3.2011 took cognizance of the said contempt and issued notice to the Dr. Rajkumari Verma, Principal, DIET, District Sitapur. As a result of the said notice issued in the contempt petition, the order dated 18.5.2011 impugned in the writ petition giving rise to the present Special Appeal has been passed.
When the matter came up before the Hon'ble Single Judge it was submitted by the appellant-petitioner that in her Application Form in the Special B.T.C. Training-2008 she had wrongly indicated her marks of High School as 256 instead of 356 as a result of which the total merit index marks came to 227.73, which was less than the marks secured by the last selected candidate. On the consideration of these facts the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 2.11.2011 by observing that it was for the petitioner to have immediately made a representation for correction of her marks in the Application Form and in view of the matter since the duration of Special B.T.C. Training-2008 is only six months and the said period being over, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 2.11.2011 the present Special appeal has been filed.
We have heard Sri K.C. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Dr. Y. K .Srivastava, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to sheer human error while filling her Application Form for the Special B.T.C. Training-2008, the appellant-petitioner mentioned the marks obtained by her in High School as 256 instead of 356 whereas actually she had secured 356 marks in her High School Examination and if her merit had been considered on the basis of the said actual marks obtained, her merit in the total merit index would have been 244.40 whereas the merit of the last selected woman candidate was 231.59 and, therefore, in that eventuality the petitioner would have fallen within the zone of consideration and ought to have been sent for training.
The only point raised before us while opposing the present Special Appeal by Dr. Y .K. Srivastava,learned counsel for the respondents is that in the advertisement itself it was categorically stated that merit would be prepared on the basis of declaration of marks as made in the application submitted by the candidate at the time of applying for Special B.T.C. Training-2008 and the appellant-petitioner having disclosed her marks in her High School as 256, her merit in the total merit index came to 227.73 and since last woman candidate had secured 231.59 marks as per total merit index, the same being more than that secured by the appellant -petitioner, the appellant would not be eligible for being sent for training in the Special B.T.C. Training-2008 and her candidature was, therefore, rightly rejected.
From the record, it is seen that in her Application Form while applying for Special B. T.C.-2008, the appellant-petitioner had mentioned the marks obtained by her in High School as 256 whereas in actuality the marks obtained by her as per her High School Examination Certificate was 356. Further as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the error in the Application Form has crept only through sheer human error and, therefore, the actual marks obtained by her as evident from the High School Certificate being 356 ought not to have been ignored.
From perusal of the column 13 of the advertisement (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), it will be seen that along with the Application Form the candidates were also required to submit their High School and other certificates in support of the declaration of marks made by them in column 10 of the advertisement. Thus, the High School Examination Certificate having been appended to the Application Form it cannot be said that there was no material before the competent authority to verify the actual marks obtained by the appellant-petitioner. In fact, the testimonials in support of the education qualification are, as a matter of fact, required to be filed for purposes of verification of the statement and declaration made in column 10 of the advertisement and, in such circumstances, the High School Certificate of the appellant-petitioner being before the competent authority, even if the appellant had, through human error mentioned her marks obtained in her High School Certificate as 256, the competent authority ought to have verified the same from the High School marks shown in the High School Certificate appended to the appellant's Application Form. Apparently, this was not done and the candidature of the appellant was rejected in a most cursory and arbitrary fashion relying purely upon the declaration made in the Application Form. It may further be noticed that by mentioning her High School marks in the application form as 256 instead of 356 the appellant-petitioner did not stand to gain any ulterior benefits and it is not a case where the appellant-petitioner deliberately tried to mislead the respondents for any personal gain. These facts have not been considered at all by the competent authority while rejecting the representation of the appellant-petitioner. However, as we have already mentioned that since the original testimonials were appended to the application form, the competent authority ought to have given credence to the High School Examination Certificate appended to the Application Form of the appellant rather than ignoring the same and arbitrarily rejecting the candidature of the appellant-petitioner merely on the basis of lesser marks wrongly disclosed in the Application Form.
We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 2.11.2011.
The respondent no.5 is directed to take steps expeditiously to provide Special B.T.C. Training to the appellant-petitioner, this exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent no.5 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.1.2012 Asha