# Anil Kumar Prajapati v. Addl. Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow & others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 170
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34908 of 2001
- **Bench:** R.B. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-prajapati-v-addl-managing-director-u-p-s-r-t-c-lucknow-others-40344
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Petitioner applied for post of conductor
in UPSRTC-Mentioning only M.A. Degree
in Application Form and not LLB degreeNeither
he
submitted
his
original
Certificate nor photo stat at time of
interview-Photostat copy of LLB degree
submitted after 10 days to interview-If
selection committee allows benefit of
certificate and documents submitted at
subsequent stage, spirit of selection
being conducted on basis of interview
shall be frustrated-held, since petitioner
did not produce his original degree at
time of interview, Non consideration the
benefit of LLB-held proper.

Held: Para 9

The petitioner at the time of interview,
undisputedly did not disclose that he
was in possession of LLB Degree. Neither
he submitted his original certificates nor
Photostat at the time of interview and a
Photostat copy of LLB degree was
submitted 20.6.1996 i.e. about 10 days
later to the interview. The selection
committee incase of finalisation of the
selection on the basis of interview could
only see the materials which were before
the selection committee at the time of
interview and not later on. If the
selection committee allows the benefit of
certificate and documents submitted at
subsequent stage, the spirit of the
selection being conducted on the basis of
interview shall be frustrated. Since the
petitioner did not produce his original
degree
at
the
time
of
interview,
therefore, the respondents rightly did
not consider for awarding benefit to the
candidature of the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1991 (62) FLR 328(SC)

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
170
fixed for 15th July, 2004. In the opinion
of the Court the notice published by the
Director General Medical Education and
Training does not in any way intimate that
the candidates shall loose their right to be
considered as a female candidate on 15th
July, 2004 if they do not appear for
registration and councilling on the earlier
dates mentioned in the notice.

11.

The
notice
specifically
mentioned 15th July, 2004 as the date for
registration and councilling of female
candidates from rank 1 to 550. Therefore,
a clear assurance was held out by the
Director General of Medical Education
and Training that the registration and
councilling
of
female
category
of
candidates would be held on 15th July,
2004 only. Therefore, the respondents
were not justified in refusing admission to
the petitioner on the ground that she had
not
appeared
for
registration
and
councilling on the dates from 10th to 14th
July, 2004.

12. The note 3 relied by the
respondents more or less supports the case
of the petitioner inasmuch as the seats of
female category could not have exhausted
prior to 15th July, 2004. It was also
legally not permissible to close the
registration and councilling of female
candidates prior to 15th July, 2004 in view
of the notice issued by the Director
General Medical Education and Training
dated 8th July, 2004 by which all the
female
candidates were invited
for
registration and councilling on 15th July,
2004.

13. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances as noticed hereinabove it is
provided that the respondents shall grant
admission to the petitioner in MBBS
course if any female candidate lower in
rank to the petitioner has been admitted to
the said course, by tomorrow i.e. 30th
September, 2004. The right of the
petitioner to get admission in MBBS
course shall not be permitted to be
defeated by the respondents on the plea
that it is not possible to grant admission to
her by tomorrow.

14. Sri Mahendra Pratap, counsel for
the respondents, prays for and is granted
10 days' time to file counter affidavit. List
on 8th October, 2004.

15. A copy of this order be supplied
by the office to Sri Mahendra Pratap
Advocate, counsel for the respondents,
today, to enable him to communicate the
said order to the authority concerned.

16. A copy of this order be also
supplied to be counsel for the petitioner
today on payment of necessary charges.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.9.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34908 of 2001

Anil Kumar Prajapati

...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Managing Director, UPSRTC,
Lucknow and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dr. R.G. Padia
Sri Prakash Padia
Sri S.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Avanish Misra
Sri Samir Sharma
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Anil Kumar Prajapati V. Addl. Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow & others 171
Constitution
of
India-Article
226Petitioner applied for post of conductor
in UPSRTC-Mentioning only M.A. Degree
in Application Form and not LLB degreeNeither
he
submitted
his
original
Certificate nor photo stat at time of
interview-Photostat copy of LLB degree
submitted after 10 days to interview-If
selection committee allows benefit of
certificate and documents submitted at
subsequent stage, spirit of selection
being conducted on basis of interview
shall be frustrated-held, since petitioner
did not produce his original degree at
time of interview, Non consideration the
benefit of LLB-held proper.

Held: Para 9

The petitioner at the time of interview,
undisputedly did not disclose that he
was in possession of LLB Degree. Neither
he submitted his original certificates nor
Photostat at the time of interview and a
Photostat copy of LLB degree was
submitted 20.6.1996 i.e. about 10 days
later to the interview. The selection
committee incase of finalisation of the
selection on the basis of interview could
only see the materials which were before
the selection committee at the time of
interview and not later on. If the
selection committee allows the benefit of
certificate and documents submitted at
subsequent stage, the spirit of the
selection being conducted on the basis of
interview shall be frustrated. Since the
petitioner did not produce his original
degree
at
the
time
of
interview,
therefore, the respondents rightly did
not consider for awarding benefit to the
candidature of the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1991 (62) FLR 328(SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J.)

Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shamir
Sharma on behalf of the respondents.

1. In this petition, prayer has been
made to quash the order dated 6.7.2001
passed by the Chief Manager (Karmik)
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
Head Quarter, Lucknow, whereby in
compliance to the order dated 9.4.2001
passed in earlier writ petition no. 13105 of
2000, the representation of the petitioner
was considered and rejected.

2. Undisputed facts are that 500
posts of Conductors in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation (in short called as
"Corporation' hereinafter) were to be
filled up for which an advertisement dated
18/19.1.1995
was
published
inviting
applications from eligible candidates. The
candidates
were
to
produce
their
testimonials, original certificates and
papers
in
respect
of
their
other
qualifications for the said selection of
Conductors which was to be finalised on
the basis of interview only. It appears that
about 1100 candidates including 5300
apprentices (i.e. candidates who were in
possession of apprentice certificates) and
about 5500 candidates from open market
applied. The interview was conducted on
10.6.1996. The petitioner had mentioned
only as M.A. In his application form and
not the LLB degree dated 1.3.1993 which
he
obtained
in
reference
to
the
examination of year 1992. The original or
photo stat of degree was not produced by
the petitioner at the time of interview. It
appears the photo stat of same was
produced before the concerned authority
on
20.6.1996
with
the
request
to
acknowledge his LLB degree and to
award
preferential
marks
for
his
additional degree.

3. According to the petitioner he
could not produce the original certificate
on the date of interview and since photo
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
172
stat copy of LLB degree was not being
accepted, therefore, on the assurance of
the Regional Manager, he had shown his
original degree next day i.e. 11.6.1996 to
the Regional Manager. Since one Sri
Suresh Kumar Pachauri, who was also
given benefit of his LLB degree on his
production subsequent to the outcome of
the interview, therefore, in the similar
manner, the petitioner is also entitled to
be given the benefit of LLB degree
awarding preferential marks.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner in
view of the decision of the Division
Bench rendered in the case of Anuradh
Vs. Director, U.P. Rajya Shikshak
Anusandhan
Evam
Prakashan
Sansthan, Lucknow and others, the
benefit of N.C.C. Certificate, not given
earlier,
was
subsequently
given on
production of the same. In view of the
decision of the Supreme Court reported in
1991 (62) FLR, 328 Sri Shreerampaa V.
The
Karnataka
Public
Service
Commission
and
others,
the
writ
petitioner expected to submit his mark
sheet at the time of interview, however,
could not be do so, though he was
qualified for selection on this basis of
total marks, including the marks which he
obtained for his additional qualification,
therefore, on production of mark sheet at
subsequent stage, the writ petitioner was
directed to be accommodated against the
future vacancies.

5. The authenticity of obtaining LLB
degree dated 11.3.1993 in reference to the
examination of 1992 and obtaining of MA
degree simultaneously at one time from
the two different Universities is not
permissible.
According
to
the
respondents, the petitioner had produced
the photo stat of LLB degree, not entitled
him to consider his case relegating back
the situation of the date of interview i.e.
on 10.6.1996.

6. According to the respondents,
large number of candidates were to be
interviewed
on
the
basis
of
their
testimonials, certificates and degrees
produced by them and the marks were
awarded by selection committee. The
possession of LLB degree of petitioner in
absence of non production of the same
and same could not be subject matter of
interview.

7. According to the respondents, the
case of the petitioner is different and
distinguishable to the case of Sri Suresh
Kumar Pachauri (Supra) and the later one
in fact had already submitted his original
certificates
along
with
his
original
application, however, the same was over
looked for being considered by selection
committee,
which
subsequently
was
rightly acknowledged.

8. The facts and circumstances of
the case of Anuradha (supra) is different
and distinguishable. According to the
respondents,
the
above
verdict
of
Anuradha's case was not having an
universal application and shall not protect
the case of the petitioner.

9. The petitioner at the time of
interview, undisputedly did not disclose
that he was in possession of LLB Degree.
Neither
he
submitted
his
original
certificates nor Photostat at the time of
interview and a Photostat copy of LLB
degree was submitted 20.6.1996 i.e. about
10 days later to the interview. The
selection committee incase of finalisation
of the selection on the basis of interview
could only see the materials which were
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Anil Kumar Prajapati V. Addl. Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C., Lucknow & others 173
before the selection committee at the time
of interview and not later on. If the
selection committee allows the benefit of
certificate and documents submitted at
subsequent stage, the spirit of the
selection being conducted on the basis of
interview shall be frustrated. Since the
petitioner did not produce his original
degree at the time of interview, therefore,
the respondents rightly did not consider
for awarding benefit to the candidature of
the petitioner.

10. I do not find any illegality and
infirmity in the order dated 16.7.2001
passed by the Chief Manager (Karmik) of
the Corporation, therefore, the petitioner
is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3467 of 1986

Harish Chandra Agrawal
...Petitioner
Versus
III Additional District Judge, Agra and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
Sri S.C. Mandhyan
Sri Vinod Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.P. Agarwal
Sri Dinesh Tewari
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226-Writ
Jurisdiction-Exercise of Guidelines for
interference-Only
if
findings
are
perverse.

Held: Para 9

A bare reading of paragraph 38, Subpara (8) of the aforesaid judgment
clearly shows that it clearly prescribes
the guidelines for interference by this
Court in exercise of power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. On the
question of finding being perverse, it
should
have
considered
the
entire
evidence on record, according to learned
counsel for the petitioner, but I do not
agree with the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the
findings arrived at by the appellate
authority were either perverse, or suffer
from the manifest error or law, so as to
warrant any interference by this Court in
exercise of power under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
Case law discussed:
2001 (1) ARC 352
1984 (2) ARC 208
1980 ARC 381
(2003) 6 SCC 675

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties.

1. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved
by the order dated 11th February, 1986,
passed by III Additional District Judge,
Agra, copy whereof is annexed as
Annexure-'IV' to the writ petition,
approached this Court by means of
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, whereby the
appeal filed by the respondent-landlord
under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972 was allowed by the appellate
Court.