Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 September, 2023
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175939 Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13274 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lavlesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shikhar Tandon, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the UP Public Service Commission and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. Petitioner who had appeared for typing test held for the post of Assistant Review Officer pursuant to the advertisement issued by the UP Public Service Commission on 05.03.2021 had complained of not being provided with truly functional keyboard to participate in the typing test. Thus, the complaint was made that he was provided with a defective system and, therefore, could not succeed in the typing test.
3. The stand taken by the Public Service Commission was contrary to what was pleaded in the writ petition and accordingly, this Court had asked the, learned Advocate appearing for the Commission to produce the video recording of the period during which the demonstration of the key board and the computer system was done in the examination hall and the period during which the real typing test was held.
4. Today, the video recording has been produced and has been watched in the presence of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. P.K. Srivastava and also the petitioner who has appeared in person.
5. From the video recording, it transpires that the demonstration as to the functionality of the computer system including keyboard has started at 3.24.00 hours and it lasted till 3.26.00 hours and the petitioner had certain issues with the keyboard so he raised his hand making complaint and the concerned staff/officer changed the keyboard and provided him with a new keyboard at around 3.29.00 hours.
6. The typing test started at 3.37.01 hours and concluded at 3.42.31 hours during which period, petitioner is seen to be fully concentrating upon the computer screen and not complaining of any difficulty in using the keyboard given to him in exchange of the previous one. Though, one of the candidates, who are seen appearing along with him, raised certain issues with the staff/invigilator who is seen duly attending the call. It is after the test is over that petitioner is seen to be satisfied by his gesture.
7. The petitioner present in person submitted that there was no demonstration test allowed in respect of the second keyboard but the video recording shows that he too never demanded for the same, nor made any complaint regarding the same. Thus, a candidate who had the opportunity to raise the issue, if he had any with the computer system (software/hardware) and failed to raise said issue, now he cannot be permitted to make a complaint that he had certain issues but nobody took notice of that.
8. In view of the above, therefore, the Court having seen the video recording in presence of the learned Advocates appearing for the respondent parties and the petitioner appearing in person, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on his behalf or by him.
9. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. The original pen drive containing video recording is returned to the learned Advocate appearing for the UP Public Service Commission.
Order Date :- 6.9.2023 P Kesari