# Ajai Kumar v. U.P. Public Service Commission & another

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 55
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajai-kumar-v-u-p-public-service-commission-another-39542
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

3All] Ajai Kumar V. U.P. Public Service Commission & another
55
and for such areas, as may be
necessary, to give effect to the provisions
of this Act. Sub-section (9) of Section 3 of
the aforesaid Act defines the Settlement
Officer Consolidation, which is as under :-

"(9)-'Settlement
Officer
Consolidation means the person
appointed as such by the State
Government to exercise the powers
and
perform
the
duties
of a
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
under this Act or the rules made
thereunder and shall include an
Additional
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
and
Assistant
Settlement Officer Consolidation."

12. There is nothing on record to
prove
that
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation was not appointed by the
State Government, therefore, he was subordinate to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation and in view of Section 48 of
the aforesaid Act, as amended, the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction
to entertain the revision and decided the
same.

13. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order passed
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Ghazipur dated 8.1.1991 is, hereby, set
aside and the matter is sent back to the
Deputy Director of Consolidation with a
direction to restore the revision to its
original number and decide the same
afresh on merit. There will be no orders as
to cost.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,
&,9,/ 6,'(
/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
+21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
+21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
+21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5<-
+21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5<-

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

$MDL .XPDU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
83 3XEOLF 6HUYLFH &RPPLVVLRQ
 DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV.

&RXQVHOV IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 1HHUDM 7LZDUL
6UL 8PHVK 1DUDLQ 6KDUPD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

$SSOLFDWLRQ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ FRPELQHG
6WDWH
6XERUGLQDWH
6HUYLFH
3UH
([DPLQDWLRQ

±
5HMHFWHG
E\
&RPPLVVLRQ RQ JURXQG WKDW 4XDOLILFDWLRQ
DV %&RP ZDV QRW PHQWLRQHG WKHVH DUH
WKH
FDVHV
RI
KXPDQ
HUURU
FDQGLGDWH
VKRXOG
QRW
EH
SHQDOL]HG
&RPPLVVLRQ
VKRXOG DVN WKH FDQGLGDWH WR UHPRYH WKH
HUURUV
+HOG 3DUD
:H DUH RI WKH RSLQLRQ WKDW WKH 83 3XEOLF
6HUYLFH
&RPPLVVLRQ
VKRXOG
QRW
UHMHFW
IRUPV
RQ
VXFK
WHFKQLFDOLWLHV
6HYHUDO
SHWLWLRQHUV DUH FRPLQJ XS EHIRUH WKLV
&RXUW ZKHUH IRUPV DUH UHMHFWHG GXH WR
WHFKQLFDO
RPLVVLRQV
HJ
WKDW
WKH
FDQGLGDWH GLG QRW ILOO LQ KLV GDWH RI ELUWK
RU KLV TXDOLILFDWLRQ HWF 2EYLRXVO\ WKHVH
DUH FDVHV RI KXPDQ HUURU DQG D SHUVRQ
VKRXOG
QRW
EH
SHQDOL]HG
IRU
WKLV
$OO
KXPDQV FDQ FRPPLW HUURUV 7KH SURSHU
FRXUVH RI
DFWLRQ IRU WKH &RPPLVVLRQ LV
WKDW LQ VXFK FDVHV WKH &RPPLVVLRQ VKRXOG
FDOO DQG DVN WKH FDQGLGDWH WR ILOO LQ WKH
RPLVVLRQ DQG LW VKRXOG QRW UHMHFW KLV
$SSOLFDWLRQ )RUP RQ VXFK WHFKQLFDOLWLHV
INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
56
By the Court

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1.

The
petitioner
applied for
Combined/State
Subordinate
Service
(Preliminary)
Examination,
2000.
According to him, inadvertently he could
not mention in the Application Form his
qualification as B.Com. and on that ground
his application was rejected.

2. We are of the opinion that the U.P.
Public Service Commission should not
reject forms on such technicalities. Several
petitions are coming up before this Court
where forms are rejected due to technical
omissions e.g. that the candidate did not
fill in his date of birth or his qualification
etc. Obviously, these are cases of human
error and a person should not be penalized
for this. All humans can commit errors.
The proper course of action for the
Commission is that in such cases the
Commission should call and ask the
candidate to fill in the omission, and it is
should not reject his Application Form on
such technicalities.

3. A division bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No. 20650 of 1999 (Rana
Pratap Singh vs. U.P. Public Service
Commission and Another) decided on
19.5.1999 allowed a similar petition.

4. Accordingly, this petition is also
allowed. The petitioner is permitted to fill
in,
in
his
Application
Form
his
qualification
as
B.Com.
etc.
after
producing the original Certificate etc. as
required by the Commission.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -
',1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6PW 6DURM -DLVZDO :LIH RI 6UL 0/ -DLVZDO
DQG DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH .DQSXU 1DJDU DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $1 6LQKD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83=$ & / 5 $FW 6HFWLRQ
DQG $SSOLFDELOLW\ RI WKH SURYLVLRQV RI
&3& LQFOXGLQJ WKH 3URYLVLRQV RI 2UGHU
 &3& REMHFWLRQ DJDLQVW DWWDFKPHQW
DXWKRULWLHV DUH XQGHU OHJDO REOLJDWLRQ WR
GHFLGH FRXUW H[SUHVVHG LWV JUHDW FRQFHUQ
UHJDUGLQJ GHSORUDEOH VLWXDWLRQ VWDQGLQJ
FRXQVHO DVVXUHG WKDW WKH DXWKRULW\ VKDOO
REH\ WKH SURYLVLRQV RI ODZ
3DUD
,W LV VWDWHG DW %DU WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHUV
KDYH ILOHG REMHFWLRQ EXW WKH FRQFHUQHG
DXWKRULW\ KDV QRW GLVSRVHG RI WKH VDPH
DQG LV SURFHHGLQJ IXUWKHU LQ WKH PDWWHU ,I
LW LV UHDOO\ VR WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV GHSORUDEOH

By the Court

1. Heard Shri A.N. Sinha, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri
Sanjay
Goswami,
learned
Standing
Counsel of the State of U.P. representing
the respondents No. 1 and 2, and Shri
Chandra Prakash, learned counsel who has