69000 शिक्षक भर्ती : हाई स्कुल अंक तालिका के गलत नंबर भरने से भर्ती से वंचित को भी कोर्ट ने दिखाया बाहर का रास्ता
Allahabad High Court
Nidhi Gangwar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 March, 2024
1. Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Application is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned.
2. Appellant had applied for appointment to the post of teacher pursuant to a recruitment exercise undertaken by the Department of Basic Education for appointment of 69000 teachers. The process was initiated pursuant to Government Order dated 1.12.2018. The appellant contends that she had in fact scored 372 marks in the High School but had inadvertently mentioned it as 272 in her online application form, on account of which the appellant was not selected. The appellant had earlier filed Writ Petition No.4070 of 2020 with the payer to allow correction in the application, filed online by the appellant, which was dismissed. A special appeal filed in the matter was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant. It is thereafter that appellant has filed a fresh writ petition, which has been dismissed relying upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021 (Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and others).
These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above.
(emphasis supplied by us)
9. Special appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.3.2024 Anil
-------------------------------------
Complete Case Order -
Allahabad High Court
Nidhi Gangwar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:39670-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 432 of 2022
Appellant :- Nidhi Gangwar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Chitranshu Srivastav,Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Delay in filing of the appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Application is allowed. Delay in filing of appeal is condoned.
2. Appellant had applied for appointment to the post of teacher pursuant to a recruitment exercise undertaken by the Department of Basic Education for appointment of 69000 teachers. The process was initiated pursuant to Government Order dated 1.12.2018. The appellant contends that she had in fact scored 372 marks in the High School but had inadvertently mentioned it as 272 in her online application form, on account of which the appellant was not selected. The appellant had earlier filed Writ Petition No.4070 of 2020 with the payer to allow correction in the application, filed online by the appellant, which was dismissed. A special appeal filed in the matter was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant. It is thereafter that appellant has filed a fresh writ petition, which has been dismissed relying upon the order passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021 (Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and others).
3. Attention of the Court has been invited by the appellant to page 115 of the paper book, which contains the representation of the appellant, wherein it is clearly stated that in the event appellant is allowed to correct her marks in the online application form, her name will also figure in the list of selected candidates. It is, therefore, admitted to the appellant that she has not been able to secure her selection on the basis of details feeded in her online application.
4. We are informed by counsel for the respondent Board that more than 4 lac candidates had applied online and the process of recruitment has since been concluded. It is pointed that the appellant has herself to blame for not correctly recording the marks obtained by her in the High School Examination, due to which her name did not figure in the select list. It is submitted that much after the recruitment is finalized, it would be too late to entertain a prayer of the kind put-forth by the appellant. It is also submitted that a bunch of special appeals involving similar cases were decided with leading Special Appeal Defective No.302 of 2020, vide judgment and order dated 22.4.2022. The category of cases to which the appellant belongs have been dealt with in para 13 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"13. It is made clear that candidates, whose names do not find place in the select list dated 12.5.2020, will not get any benefit with the change of marks as their merit position will not be changed for the reason that in case this is allowed to happen at this stage, it will open the entire selection process which is not the spirit of the order passed by this Court."
5. On behalf of appellant, reliance is placed upon an order passed by the Supreme Court in Rahul Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.378 of 2021.
6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rahul Kumar (supra) was delivered in the peculiar facts of the case, where even with incorrect mentioning of marks, by which the candidate was put to disadvantageous position, yet his selection was ensured. It was in that case that the Supreme Court directed that the claim of such candidates would not be rejected. Para 7 and 8 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rahul Kumar (supra) are reproduced hereinafter:-
"7. We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled. The rigour of the G.O. and the Circular is clear that wherever undue advantage can enure to the candidate if the discrepancy were to go unnoticed, regardless whether the percentage of advantage was greater or lesser, the candidature of such candidate must stand cancelled. However, wherever the candidate was not claiming any advantage and as a matter of fact, had put himself in a disadvantaged position, his candidature will not stand cancelled but the candidate will have to remain satisfied with what was quoted or projected in the application form.
These petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of what is stated above.
8. It must however be stated here that the authorities are not strictly following the intent of the G.O. and the Circular. For example, the Office Order dated 28.03.2021 issued by the Basic Teacher Education Officer, District Hardoi, shows cancellation of the candidature of one Raghav Sharan Singh at Serial No.4, though the projection of marks by way of mistake by said candidate was to his disadvantage. Logically, said candidate would be entitled to have his candidature considered and reckoned at the disadvantaged level. The record shows that even with such disadvantage, the candidate was entitled to be selected."
(emphasis supplied by us)
7. The limited protection that the Supreme Court had granted was that candidature of such candidate would not be cancelled on account of incorrect entry made in the application form. Their status in the select list would continue as per the disadvantageous position that the candidates were placed on account of their wrong recording of details in the application form. The Supreme Court had not issued any direction to correct the application form, as is prayed in this case. If the claim of appellant is accepted then the select list would be affected, which was never the intendment of the Apex Court.
8. We, therefore, find that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rahul Kumar (supra) would not come to the rescue of the present appellant, as has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.302 of 2020. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge that in light of the order passed by the Supreme Court in case of Jyoti Yadav (supra), and Special Appeal Defective No.551 of 2021, the appellant would not be entitled to any relief.
9. Special appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.3.2024 Anil
