Allahabad High Court
Shiv Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 March, 2020
Author: Ravi Nath Tilhari
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3254 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shiv Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritesh Srivastava,Narendra Kumar Yadav,Shweta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
1. Heard Sri Ritesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Singh learned Standing Counsel for Respondents.
2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties this petition is being disposed of at the admission stage under the Rules of the Court.
3. 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 to quash the final select list dated 18.2.2019 for the post of Constable PAC prepared and issued by the respondents as well as the final result dated 18.2.2019 declared by the respondents in the process of Direct Recruitment to the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC-2018.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to prepare and issue the select list for the post of Constable PAC afresh strictly according to the normalized score obtained by the candidates including the name of the petitioner as a selected candidate for the post of Constable PAC to save the sanctity of the recruitment process.
(iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner."
4. The petitioner's case is that he applied for appointment to the post of Constable Civil Police/Constable PAC in pursuance of the recruitment exercise initiated by notice/advertisement No. PRPB-1 (112/2017) dated 14/1/2018. As per the advertisement the application had to be made online which was followed by a written test, document verification, physical standard test, medical examination and thereafter the final select list was to be drawn. The petitioner being fully eligible applied online form for the post of constable and after registration of his candidature he was issued an admit card for written examination in which he appeared on 18.6.2018 in the first sift at the given centre. The Respondent No.2 vide notice/advertisement dated 4.12.2018 declared the categorywise cutoff marks and as per the said notice the cut off marks for other backward category is 216.24240. The petitioner was called by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow (The Board) to appear in scrutiny of documents and physical standard tests. However, vide another notice dated 15.12.2018 a revised cut off marks for OBC category i.e. 204.74484 was published and the petitioner was again called by the Board to appear in scrutiny of documents and physical standard test to be held on 28.12.2018, where the petitioner duly reported for document verification and passed the stage of document verification/physical standard tests and was called for the next stage of the recruitment i.e. the physical efficiency test which was schedule for 2.1.2019. The petitioner also appeared in the said test held on 2.1.2019 and was allotted chest No. 0951. However, the Respondent No.2 vide notice/advertisement dated 18.2.2019 declared the result of direct recruitment 2019 for the post of Civil Police Constable but in the said select list the name of the petitioner did not find place, whereas the select list contained the names of the candidates who had secured marks lesser than the petitioner.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents and it has been stated in paragraph 4 that prior to the preparation of select list, the biometric and photograph taken at the time of written examination, scrutiny of record and the biometric and photograph taken during the physical efficiency examination, were duly examined at the level of the recruitment board. The Board found differences (mismatch) in the biometric and photograph and observed that 130 candidates, by playing fraud got other students appeared in the written examination in their places and in such a situation the final selection result was declared by removing the names of those 130 candidates from the selection process.
6. A list showing the name of those 130 candidates in which the name of the petitioner Shiv Prasad is at Serial No. 100 has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel has stated that the copiesof Capture biometric and photographs of those 130 candidates were sent by the recruitment board to the Additional Director General of Police Head Quarters Technical Services, U.P. Lucknow vide letter dated 7.3.2019 to submit report after getting the same examined through technical experts and upon receipt of the desired report in respect of those 130 candidates, further action would be taken accordingly.
7. Thus according to the respondents, the petitioner's name was not included in the select list on the ground that there was some mismatch between biometrics and photographs of the petitioner taken at the time of written examination and biometric and photographs taken at the time of physical efficiency examination.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner was informed of the reasons as to why his name was not included in the select list nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in that respect. He next contended that in case the authorities had any material to reject the petitioner's candidature or for non inclusion of the petitioner's name in the select list, a reasonable opportunity should have been given to the petitioner and the petitioner should have been confronted with the adverse material and any order having civil consequences could not have been passed against the petitioner nor any adverse action could have been taken in violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others Writ Petition No. 2813 of 2017 decided vide judgment dated 16.4.2018 which was affirmed by dismissal of Special Appeal No. 2812 of 2018 filed against the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kuntal and 65 others vs. State of U.P. and another Writ A No. 3312 of 2019 decided on 18.10.2019.
10. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to controvert the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing in respect of exclusion of his name from the select list on the ground that there was mismatch in the thumb impressions of the petitioner. He has fairly submitted that the petitioner was not confronted with any adverse material nor any reasoned order was passed in respect of the petitioner's candidature.
11. The learned Standing Counsel has also fairly conceded that the petitioner's case is of the same category as of some of the petitioners of Writ A No. 3312 of 2019 Pradeep Kumar Kuntal (supra) in respect of which directions as contained in paragraph 9 (4) of the said judgment dated 18.10.2019 were issued by this Court.
12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
13. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Kuntal and 65 others (supra) this Court with respect to the petitioners of that petition of the same category as of the present petitioner has issued directions. It is appropriate to reproduce Pagraph 5 and 9(iv) as under:-
"5. The other category of petitioners are those whose candidature stands rejected on the ground that there is a mismatch between the thumb impression affixed on the document verification vis-a-vis the admitted document. Petitioners submit that neither they have been informed of the reasons as to why their candidature has been rejected, nor any opportunity of hearing has been given to them in that regard. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, in Writ Petition No.2813 of 2017, decided on 16.4.2018, which has been affirmed with dismissal of Special Appeal No. 2813 of 2018, on 8.5.2019. It is submitted that in case the authorities had any material to reject petitioners' candidature on such ground, a reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners.
(9) (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)."
14. The case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) was considered by this court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kuntal (supra) and the authorities were directed to keep in mind the observations made by this Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh.
15. In view of the above, this writ petition is also finally disposed of in the light of the observations and directions given in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kuntal and 65 others (supra).
16. The petitioner who has been non-suited on account of mismatch between his thumb impression/biometrics on the admitted documents vis-à-vis thumb impression obtained on the date of the document verification etc. would be informed of the materials that exist against him in respect of the respondents' plea that the petitioner has indulged in impersonation. Such intimation would be given to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The petitioner in that regard would have an opportunity to submit his reply annexing materials that he intends to rely upon in support of his claim. The authority 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 Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others (supra).
17. The petitioner shall also supply copy of the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) along with certified copy of this Judgment/order to the authorities.
18. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Order Date:- 4.3.2020 Manish Tripathi