# Aditya Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 36
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17452 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48890
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Petitioner to appear in
preliminary exam for the post of SubInspector
in
Uttar
Pradesh
Police/Plantoon Commander P.A.C./Fire
Branch-schedule for taking examination
was between 12.11.2021 to 02.12.2021Petitioner fell ill due to typhoid-Petitioner
moved an application to reschedule his
examination between that period but
nothing was done-respondents had acted
in unjustified manner in rescheduling the
exams of nearly 125 candidates whereas
denying the request of the petitioner for
the same and have acted in unreasonable
manner against the brochure which does
not permit rescheduled of the examination
in any case-while in the notification the
clauses as specified goes to show that in
case of technicalities the exams will be
held on 03.12.2021 and not due to any
individual difficulty of candidates-Hence,
the case of the petitioner does not stand
on the ground of being discriminated.
(Para 1 to 23)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A36
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 17452 of 2021

Aditya Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manish Goyal (Addl. A.G.)

A. Service Law - Petitioner to appear in
preliminary exam for the post of SubInspector
in
Uttar
Pradesh
Police/Plantoon Commander P.A.C./Fire
Branch-schedule for taking examination
was between 12.11.2021 to 02.12.2021Petitioner fell ill due to typhoid-Petitioner
moved an application to reschedule his
examination between that period but
nothing was done-respondents had acted
in unjustified manner in rescheduling the
exams of nearly 125 candidates whereas
denying the request of the petitioner for
the same and have acted in unreasonable
manner against the brochure which does
not permit rescheduled of the examination
in any case-while in the notification the
clauses as specified goes to show that in
case of technicalities the exams will be
held on 03.12.2021 and not due to any
individual difficulty of candidates-Hence,
the case of the petitioner does not stand
on the ground of being discriminated.
(Para 1 to 23)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Asha Vs Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health
Science & ors. (2012) 7 SCC 389

2. Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2020) 1 ADJ 187 DB
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner
filed the amendment application to add
prayer No. (ii-A) and (ii-B) in the prayer
clause.

2. As no objection has been raised by
learned counsel for the respondents, this
amendment application is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is permitted to incorporate the necessary
amendment in the body of the petition
within three days.

Order on Petition

1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Manish Goel, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikram
Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. Initially, the instant petition has
been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-

"(i) a writ, order or direction, in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents no.2 and 3 to permit the
petitioner
to
appear
in
preliminary
examination for the post of Sub-Inspector
in
Uttar
Pradesh
Police/Plantoon
Commander P.A.C./Fire Branch (2020-21)
between the dates 30.11.2021 to 03.11.2021
7 All. Aditya Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
37
at any examination center of Prayagraj by
making alternative arrangement for the
same.

(ii) a writ, order or direction, in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents no.2 and 3 to take necessary
action for the post of Sub-Inspector in
Uttar
Pradesh
Police/Plantoon
Commander PAC/Fire Branch (2021-21)
after issuance of admit card for the same by
making alternative arrangement."

3. Subsequently, by means of an
amendment application, which has been
allowed
by
this
Court
today
itself,
petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

"(ii-A) A writ of certiorari to call
for entire records of those candidates
whose exam date has admittedly been
rescheduled/shifted and quash their result
of online written exam conducted by
respondent no.2 in furtherance of their
notification dated 25.02.2021 amended
notification
dated
15.06.2021
and
notification dated 01.11.2021.

(ii-B) A writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.2 to pay compensation
amount of Rs.10 Lacks to petitioner for
violating his right of equality provided
under Article 16 of Constitution of India
(and equal treatment) to appear in online
written
exam
(of
U.P.
Police
SubInspector/Plantoon Commander PAC/Fire
Branch) after rescheduled the date like
other candidates whose exams date has
admittedly been rescheduled."

4. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner applied for the post of SubInspector in Uttar Pradesh Police/Plantoon
Commander P.A.C./Fire Branch (2020-21),
pursuant to the notification/amendment
notification dated 25.02.2021/15.06.2021.
The respondent no.2 issued the schedule for
taking primary examination, vide letter
dated 01.11.2021 which was to be held
between 12.11.2021 to 02.12.2021.

5. As per the instructions given in the
notification dated 01.11.2021, petitioner
downloaded his admit card, in which the
examination date was fixed on 22.11.2021.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner fell ill due to
typhoid on 19.11.2021. The petitioner
being under the impression that he would
be in a position to attend the exams
scheduled to be held on 22.11.2021 but
after his treatment he was not in position to
attend the exams on 22.11.2021, as also
that the exams were scheduled to be held
for a period from 12.11.2021 to 02.12.2021
in three shifts, thought that he would move
an application, requesting to reschedule his
examination between that period. The
petitioner on the same date i.e. 22.11.2021
send online application on the website of
respondent no.2 along with his medical
papers with the request to reschedule his
exam on any other date on or before
02.12.2021. The respondent no.2 did not
pay
any
attention
on
the
aforesaid
application and when the petitioner did not
get
any
response,
he
moved
a
representation dated 27.11.2021 through
registered
post,
requesting
that
the
respondents to conduct his online written
examination
but
nothing
was
done,
therefore, the present writ petition has been
filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that Clause-3 of the notification
dated 01.11.2021 provides that in case the
examination so scheduled is not taken on
the specified date due to technicalities in
any of the centres, the examinations so
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affected will be taken on 03.12.2021.
Clause-3 of the aforesaid notification is
extracted below:-

"यदि दिसी तिनीि समस्या िे िारण दिसी परीक्षा
दतदि / पाली में दिसी िेंद्र दिशेष पर परीक्षा आयोदित नहीं हो
सिी तो ऐसे िेंद्र िी परीक्षा दिनाांि 03.12.2021 िो
आयोदित िी िाएगी।"

8. He further submits that Clause-8 of
the notification dated 01.011.2021 provides
that in case the candidates have any
problem/objection in the said online written
examination, they could contact the help
desk number as provided. Clause-8 of the
aforesaid notification is extracted below:-

"ऑनलाइन दलदित परीक्षा िे सम्बन्ध में अभ्यदिियों
िो यदि िोई समस्या / आपत्ती हो तो हेल्पडेस्ि न०. 02262337900 पर सांपिि िर सिते हैं।"

9. When the matter was taken up on
02.12.2021, the learned counsel for the
petitioner pointed out that he had acquired
knowledge that the exams of certain
candidates were rescheduled, therefore, he
moved supplementary affidavit as well as
amendment application for bringing on
record the necessary facts for proper
adjudication of the matter.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondents have not acted
according to the condition as mentioned in
the notification and have rescheduled the
examination of certain candidates who did
not appear on the date specified in the admit
card. He further submits that the respondents
have adopted an arbitrary approach in rescheduling the exams of some candidates
who could not appear on the schedule date of
exam for reasons beyond their control. The
respondents have acted in unjustified manner
in rescheduling the exams of nearly 125
candidates whereas denying the request of the
petitioner for the same and have acted in
unreasonable manner against the brochure
which does not permit rescheduled of the
examination in any case.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the Clause-2, given in general
instructions as provided in Appendix-1 of
U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil
Police) Service Rules in which Rule 125
provides:-

"(2) if a candidate fails to appear
in the examination on the scheduled date and
time, then he can give application to the
committee formed for conducting the test in
concerned district, giving reasons in details
for absence and requesting to appear in the
examination on some other date. The
committee, after considering his application,
can decide and may allow him to appear for
test on some other date. The candidate will be
given only one chance in this regard and if he
fails to appear in the examination on
rescheduled date and time, he shall be
considered unsuccessful. The candidates may
give application, before the last date fixed for
this test, by the Board. No application will
accepted after the last day. The committee
shall inform the Board about all such cases
where the date and time of the test has been
rescheduled."

12. Placing reliance upon the
aforesaid rules, it is the case of the
petitioner that as he was ill, not being in a
position to appear in the examination
scheduled on 22.11.2021, he had moved an
online application before the respondents
on time i.e. on the same date making a
request to reschedule his examination in
between
the
dates
provided
in
the
7 All. Aditya Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
39
notification but no such opportunity of
hearing was given.

13. The respondents have acted in an
arbitrary manner while permitting 125
students to appear in the examinations on
some other dates, therefore, the petitioner
has to be compensated for the same. In
support of his submission, the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Asha Vs. Pt.
B. D. Sharma University of Health
Science and others reported in (2012) 7
SCC 389, wherein it has been held as
follows:-

"Wherever the court finds that
action of the authorities has been arbitrary,
contrary to the judgements of this Court
and violative of the Rules, regulations and
conditions of the prospectus, causing
prejudice to the rights of the students, the
Court shall award compensation to such
students as well as.........."

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
in
exceptional/peculiar
circumstances when there is no fault of the
candidate/petitioner and such a person has
approached the Court within time, the Court
can always interfere in such matters when the
legal right of the petitioner is affected for which
he has approached the Court within time and
the respondents have committed fault in not
following the rules, regulations as well
principles to be followed in case of selection or
admission. In support of his submission, he has
also placed reliance upon the judgement of
Division Bench of this Court in case of Pankaj
Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others
[2020 (1) ADJ 187 DB] wherein it has been
held as follows:-

"(i)
That
in
a
case
where
candidate/student has approached the Court at
the earliest and without any delay and that the
question is with respect to the admission in
medical course all the efforts shall be made by
the concerned Court to dispose of the
proceedings by giving priority and at the
earliest.

(ii)
Under
exceptional
circumstances, if the Court finds that there is no
fault attributable to the candidate and the
candidate has pursued his/her legal right
expeditiously without any delay and there is
fauly only on the part of the authorities and/or
there is apparent breach of rules and
regulations as well as related principles in the
process of grant of admission which would
violate the right of equality and equal treatment
to the competing candidates....."

15. Thus, on the aforesaid grounds the
petitioner is entitled to be granted the relief as
prayed.

16. Learned Counsel for the State submits
that no candidate has been permitted to appear
on some other date than the date as mentioned
in the admit card on the ground of individual
difficulty. There is no discrimination as
submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner because while the examination of 125
candidates were rescheduled on the ground that
T.E.T. (Teacher Eligibility Test) examination
date clashed with the date of exam of SubInspector, therefore, the exam of separate class
of candidates has been rescheduled on the
ground of the examination of T.E.T. as the same
clashed with the date of exam of Sub-Inspector.

17. Learned Counsel for the State further
submits that reschedule of the examination is
not permitted and if that is allowed, the
Examination Regulatory Body will not be able
to conclude the selection. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance of the order dated
18.11.2021, passed in Special Leave Petition
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 6860 of 2021 (State of U.P. & others Vs.
Pankaj Kumar) wherein following observations
were made:-

"recruitment process undertaken by
the competent authorities would be meaning
less without a time line and the next recruitment
process will also get effect since determination
of the number of vacancies for the process will
keep fluctuating."

18. With respect to the notification, the
grounds raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding the conditions mentioned in
the notification dated 01.11.2021, it has been
submitted
that
the
clauses
have
been
misinterpreted.

19. A bare reading of the clauses as
specified goes to show that in case of
technicalities, the exams will be held on
03.12.2021 and not due to any individual
difficulty of the candidates. It is also clear that
for any of the problems while appearing in the
examination, it was open to the candidates to
approach the help desk number as provided and
not
for
request
for
rescheduling
the
examination.

20. Lastly, counsel for the state submits
that the examinations of such candidates whose
date
of
examination
clashed
with
the
examinations
of
T.E.T.
was
rescheduled/changed only, that too, on the prior
information given by them to the Board, so that
the service agency could be able to make
necessary arrangement for online written
examination on said changed date. He has also
brought on record the fact that the U.P.S.C. had
also changed the date of provisional education
(Teaching Service Examination) 2021 which
was scheduled on 12.12.2021 taking into
account the examination for the post of
Samiksha Adhikari conducted by Allahabad
High Court and the said examination was
subsequently conducted on 22.12.2021. From
the aforesaid, it is clear that the date of online
examination was never changed on the ground
of illness.

21. In the similar set of facts where
candidate, namely, Arun Kumar could not
appear in the examination pursuant to the same
advertisement due to illness. He approached
before Lucknow Bench of this Court by filing
Writ No. 27264 (SS) of 2021 and the Court
disposed of the writ petition with direction to
the respondents to decide the representation of
the petitioner.

22. This Court is of the opinion that there
is no provision of rescheduling the examination
on the ground of individual difficulty and
certain candidates have been permitted to
appear in the examination on another date as the
date of the present examination clashed with
some other examination, hence, the case of the
petitioner does not stand on the ground of being
discriminated.

23. In view of the aforesaid facts, the
present petition lacks merits and is accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A40
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 61226 of 2012

Hari Om Rastogi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.C. Pandey, Sri Kshitij Shailendra