Allahabad High Court
Sanjya Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 17 December, 2020
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12230 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sanjya Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 5.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to correct the Maximum Marks of Graduation Mark Sheet as 2250 in place of 2550 in online application of the appointment of 69000 Assistant Teacher, which has been filed in pursuance to the Government order dated 01.12.2018 and notification dated 16.05.2020 issued by the Secretary Board.
(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue appointment letter on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School to the petitioner."
Dealing with the issue of rectifications being sought to be made in the online application form, this Court in Pawan Kumar And 26 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ-A No. 11079 of 2020 decided on 14.12.2020] held thus:-
"On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid discussion the Court comes to the following conclusions. A permission to rectify and amend entries made in the online applications would be clearly impermissible in light of the caveats carried in the advertisements and notices issued by the respondents as well as the declarations made by the candidates themselves while participating in the recruitment process. It would not only be iniquitous but also detrimental to public interest to command the respondents to permit rectifications at the fag end of a recruitment exercise which commenced in December 2018. The stipulations contained in the advertisements and notices issued were never assailed by the petitioners prior to participating in the recruitment process. It would be unfair not just to the respondents but to the other selected candidates to now accord them such permission which would necessarily result in the selection process being stalled and derailed. This Court as well as the Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that such a course being tread would be wholly unfair and unwarranted. The Court repels the challenge to the Government Order of 4 December 2020 being contrary to the mandate of Rule 14. It also negatives its challenge on the ground of being discriminatory or unfair.
These petitions shall consequently stand disposed of with liberty to the State respondents to evaluate the case of each of the petitioners before this Court in light of the Government Order dated 4 December 2020. "
Accordingly this petition shall stand disposed of in similar terms.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Vivek Kr.