BTC/ Allahabad Highcourt : Candidature is rejected due to discrepancy in Marksheet
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 20
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 6891 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Swarup
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education & Ors
Petitioner Counsel :- Jitendra Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.K. Kushwaha,Shashi Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for Chhatrapati Shahuji Mahraj University, Kanpur.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, denying to admit the petitioner in Special B.T.C. Training-2007. Petitioner is further seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the opposite parties to consider and admit the petitioner, counting the marks of correct mark-sheet of B.A. third year and if he comes in the merit list then he may be sent for Special B.T.C. Training-2007.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner possesses the qualification of B.A. and B.Ed. and was working as Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Basaigapur, Nakaha, District-Lakhimpur Kheri since 01.12.2001. In the year 2007, some vacancies to the post of Special B.T.C. 2007 were advertised, in which 10% quota was reserved for Shiksha Mittra, who had B.Ed. or L.T. qualification with three years working experience. The petitioner in pursuance to the said advertisement applied as scheduled caste candidate. The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Kheri (opposite party no. 4) vide letter dated 07.03.2008 called upon the petitioner for verification of original documents on 11.03.2008 and subsequently, by means of letter dated 19.03.2008, the petitioner was required for completion of documents. In the meantime, opposite party no. 4 by means of letter dated 10.09.2008, cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the institute from-where the petitioner completed his B.Ed. was not recognized in the session 1995 by the NCTE.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that certain persons approached the Apex Court and on the basis of direction of Apex Court, the candidates, who were having B.Ed. course, were permitted to complete B.T.C. Course and in this background opposite party no. 4 issued letter dated 13.01.2011, directing the petitioner to submit his documents on 15/17.01.2011 and petitioner, in pursuance of the same, submitted the entire original documents/records before the authority concerned. It is also submitted that training of Special B.T.C. Course was started w.e.f. 21.07.2011 and as petitioner was not called for training, therefore, he approached the Principal, DIET, Kheri then it came in his knowledge that there is difference of three marks as petitioner secured total 258 marks (126+258) in B.A. first year and second year, but in B.A. third year mark-sheet, marks of B.A. first year and second year has been mentioned as 261, showing total marks of B.A. first, second and third year as 407 in place of 404. Due to this discrepancy, petitioner's candidature was cancelled.
The petitioner on knowing the said discrepancy, approached the Chhatrapati Shahuji Mahraj University, Kanpur on 27.11.2011 for issuance of correct mark-sheet and the corrected/duplicate mark-sheet was issued by the University on 27.09.2011, mentioning the total marks as 404 in place of 407. The petitioner, on getting the correct mark-sheet, submitted the same before the opposite party no. 4 and when no action was taken, he approached the District Magistrate by means of representation dated 05.08.2011. As no action was taken on the representation by the District Magistrate, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 5168 (M/S) of 2011. The said petition was disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 29.08.2011 with a direction to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 05.08.2011 by means of speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of order and communicate the result of the same to the petitioner.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate without taking into consideration the correct mark-sheet issued by the University, in most arbitrary manner rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the Government Order dated 10.07.2007 provides that at the time of filling the form whatever information filled in the form will be deemed to be final. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in a similar matter this Court in Writ Petition No. 4952 (M/S) of 2010, Ran Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and others by means of order dated 26.11.2010 directed the opposite parties to allow the petitioner for B.T.C. Training Course forthwith by creating one additional seat. Against the said judgment dated 26.11.2010 a Special Appeal No. 212 of 2011 was filed, which was dismissed by judgment dated 18.07.2011. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and it is the fault of University that incorrect mark-sheet was issued and on account of fault of the University, petitioner cannot be made to suffer and, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 deserves to be quashed and opposite parties may be issued directions to allow the petitioner to join Special B.T.C. Training 2007.
Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that the Government Order dated 10.07.2007 lays down the procedure for Special B.T.C. Course Training 2007. Para 20 of the said Government Order provides that if any wrong information is mentioned by any candidate or attempt is made to mislead the authorities, the legal action will be taken against such candidate. It is further provided that before sending the selected candidates for training, their original documents will be verified and compared with the details/information furnished by the candidates mentioned in the application forms and subsequently their original documents will be verified from the concerned institution from-where the said qualifications have been acquired by the candidates. Para-22 of the said Government Order also provides that the qualifications, which have been acquired on the last date of filling the application form, will only be taken into consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel further submits that point- 34 of check list provides that apart from the details mentioned in the application form, no other certificate will be accepted and considered and candidate is also required to give a declaration on oath to the effect that after his selection, if any fact is found wrong, the authorities will have right to cancel his candidature and take appropriate legal action. It is also submitted that petitioner secured 126 marks in B.A. first year and 132 marks in B.A. second year and, thus, total marks of B.A.-I and II has correctly been mentioned as 258 in B.A. second year mark-sheet issued on 29.11.1992 by the Kanpur University. The B.A. third year mark-sheet of the petitioner was issued by the University on 05.12.1992, in which total marks of B.A. first and second year has been mentioned as 261 in place of 258 and this discrepancy in calculation of marks was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, but the petitioner concealed the said fact with the intention to get selection and submitted the incorrect mark-sheet at the time of applying for Special B.T.C. Training 2007. At the time of verification of documents, it came to light that petitioner has got mark-sheet, showing higher marks than what he has really secured. As point 34 of check list, annexed with the Government Order dated 10.07.2007, specially provides that details mentioned in the application form shall be the basis of selection, therefore, said mark-sheet and other certificates, which are not mentioned in the application form, cannot be accepted.
Submission of learned Standing Counsel is that the marks shown by the petitioner in his application form were with the intention to get undue benefit and, therefore, the application form of the petitioner for Special B.T.C. Training Course-2007 has rightly been rejected by the answering opposite parties and the same is perfectly legal and in accordance with the provisions of Government Order dated 10.07.2007. Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 05.04.2007 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7132 of 2005, Rajesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, in which it has been held that verification of original certificate is for the purpose of verifying the marks and degrees as claimed in the application. The petitioner cannot be said to have any right in claiming that respondents should accept some different mark-sheet or changed marks from one which he had initially disclosed. It is also submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the District Magistrate while examining the representation dated 05.08.2011 in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5168 (M/S) of 2011 on 29.08.2011, examined the same and passed the reasoned order and there is no illegality in the same.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the recored.
Admittedly, the petitioner applied for Special B.T.C. Training 2007 in response to the advertisement issued in pursuance of Government Order dated 10.07.2007. Various provisions of said Government Order indicate that the candidate has to fill up application form on the basis of his record and qualification acquired by him upto last date of submission of application form and that will only be taken into consideration. The original certificates/records are to be considered by the selection committee on the basis of information mentioned in the application form only. In this case, the petitioner submitted his details of educational qualification and marks secured by him in different courses in his application form. At the time of verification and checking the original documents, the selection Committee came to know that though the marks of B.A. I and II has been shown correctly as 258 in the B.A. second year mark-sheet issued on 29.11.1992 by the Kanpur University, but in the mark-sheet of B.A. third year issued on 05.12.1992, the total marks of B.A. I and II has been shown as 261 and the petitioner, who has been issued mark-sheets of B.A. I and II cannot said to be ignorant of the total marks of B.A. I and II and apparently petitioner made an attempt to take advantage of the higher marks shown in B.A. third year mark-sheet to get selection in the Special B.T.C. Course Training 2007.
The Selection Committee while examining the original documents and information furnished by the petitioner in the application form, detected the said mistake and apparently cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on account of furnishing wrong information and only thereafter the petitioner approached the University authorities for correction of his mark-sheet. The petitioner approached the District Magistrate by means of representation dated 05.08.2011 with a request that his candidature may be considered on the basis of actual marks and he will submit his corrected mark-sheet after correction of the same by the University. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 5168 (M/S) of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by means of order dated 29.08.2011 with a direction to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 05.08.2011 by means of speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order and communicate the result of the same to the petitioner. The District Magistrate considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same by means of order dated 12.10.2011. On due consideration, this Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, by which representation of the petitioner was rejected.
The District Magistrate relied on the judgment in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others Vs. Government of NCT Delhi, (2003) 3 SCC 548 , which provides that the recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitments rules if any.
The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment and order dated 26.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4952 (M/S) of 2010, does not support the petitioner in any manner. In the said case, there was certain discrepancy in calculation of marks and the candidate on being called upon along with original testimonials before the Selection Committee, produced the corrected mark-sheet, but his candidature was rejected on the ground that there is difference in the details mentioned in the application and original documents. This Court, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the writ petition, directing the opposite parties to admit the petitioner on the basis of corrected mark-sheet in the Special B.T.C. Training Course-2008 forthwith by creating one additional seat.
In the present case, the petitioner after rejection of his candidature on 01.07.2011 and after start of the Special B.T.C. Course, approached the University for correction of his mark-sheet and requested the District Magistrate to consider his candidature on the basis of actual marks with a further request that he will submit corrected mark-sheet after issuance of the same from the University.
In both the cases situation is different and, therefore, judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Apart from above, as per own submission of the petitioner, the Special B.T.C. Course started on 21.07.2011 and the same must have been completed by July, 2012.
Now, at this stage, no direction can be issued to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of corrected mark-sheet. It is always open for the petitioner to apply afresh as and when the vacancies are advertised.
In view of the above, no interference is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2013
Tanveer/-
No comments:
Post a Comment
To All,
Please do not use abusive languages in Anger.
Write your comment Wisely, So that other Visitors/Readers can take it Seriously.
Thanks.