# Dheeru Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 398
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1671 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ashwini Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dheeru-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45904
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law-U.P.
Anusuchit
Jati
Aur
Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar Chatravritty
Yojna Niyamawali, 2012-Petitioners have
not qualified the Joint Enterance Examadmitted directly-are lower in merit than
management
quota/spot
counsellingcannot
seek
parity
-rightly
denied
scholorship-falls
under
exempted
category.

Held, the position otherwise appears to have
been further clarified by the State vide
Government Order dated 14.10.2019 as per
which the entitlement to receive scholarship to
the students belonging to management quota
has entirely been done away with. Even
otherwise,
petitioners
have
not
secured
admission on the strength of their merit to be
determined in the Joint Entrance Examination
result. In such circumstances, if the State has
denied consideration to petitioners' claim for
grant of scholarship, no exception can be taken
to it. (Para 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public at large must not be misled by
wrong issue of the character certificate.

34. We also do not find force in the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned order dated
22.1.2020 suffers from violation of the
principles of natural justice for non-supply
of a copy of the complaint to the petitioner
which was filed by respondent no.3 before
District
Magistrate/respondent
no.2
inasmuch as the ground of cancellation of
the character certificate i.e. the pendency of
the criminal case against the petitioner and
its suppression by the petitioner, is not in
dispute. The petitioner was afforded
opportunity of hearing and was heard
before passing the order dated 22.1.2020.

35. Thus, we do not find any illegality
in the impugned order dated 22.1.2020
passed by the District Magistrate.

36 . The writ petition lacks merit and
is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)07ILR A398
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWINI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ C No. 1671 of 2020

Dheeru Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri
Abhinav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rohit Pandey
Civil
Law-U.P.
Anusuchit
Jati
Aur
Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar Chatravritty
Yojna Niyamawali, 2012-Petitioners have
not qualified the Joint Enterance Examadmitted directly-are lower in merit than
management
quota/spot
counsellingcannot
seek
parity
-rightly
denied
scholorship-falls
under
exempted
category.

Held, the position otherwise appears to have
been further clarified by the State vide
Government Order dated 14.10.2019 as per
which the entitlement to receive scholarship to
the students belonging to management quota
has entirely been done away with. Even
otherwise,
petitioners
have
not
secured
admission on the strength of their merit to be
determined in the Joint Entrance Examination
result. In such circumstances, if the State has
denied consideration to petitioners' claim for
grant of scholarship, no exception can be taken
to it. (Para 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Modern Dental College & Research Centre . &
ors. Vs St. of M.P. . & ors., (2010) 14 SCC 186.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Petitioners, who are five in number,
have approached this Court for a direction
upon the State authorities to release
scholarship to them for the academic
sessions
2018-19
and
2019-20
in
accordance with Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit
Jati Aur Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar
Chatravritty
Yojna
Niyamawali,
2012
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2012')
and to continue to release the same in
subsequent academic sessions of B.Tech
course.

2. A perusal of record would go to
show that the petitioners have been denied
scholarship under the Rules of 2012 as they
7 All. Dheeru Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
have not qualified the joint entrance
examination and are consequently treated
in the exempted category of students like
those belonging to the management quota
or spot counseling etc. It is urged on behalf
of the petitioners that the State Government
has already framed the Rules of 2012 for
payment of fee reimbursement/scholarship
to the students which does not contain any
clause exempting them from the grant of
benefit of scholarship. The Rules of 2012 is
contained in Annexure-1 to the writ
petition. It is urged with reference to the
provisions of Rules of 2012 that there is no
stipulation for denying scholarship to
students who have been admitted without
qualifying the Joint Entrance Examination,
and therefore, a condition not stipulated in
the rules cannot be made the basis for
denying consideration to petitioners' claim
for payment of scholarship.

3. While taking note of such
submissions
this
Court
had
passed
following orders on 13.2.2020:-

"As per the instructions received
by learned Standing Counsel, petitioners'
claim for grant of scholarship under the
scheme of the State is not liable to be
entertained as the petitioners have been
admitted under management quota.

Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners states that
petitioners in fact have not been admitted in
the management quota but have been
admitted against left over counseling seats
as per the instructions issued by the
University contained in circular dated 6th
July, 2018. It is stated that petitioners got
themselves registered as per the procedure
laid down in the notice dated 6th July, 2018
and their admission cannot be treated to be
that of management quota. Learned Senior
Counsel also places reliance upon a
communication sent by the University to
the Director, Samaj Kalyan dated 6.2.2019,
according to which the petitioners, who
have been admitted against left over
counseling seats, are entitled to payment of
scholarship under the scheme of the State.

Learned Standing Counsel as also
Sri Rohit Pandey who appears for the
University will obtain instructions and
place
before
the
Court
relevant
Government
Orders,
as
per
which
petitioners' admission is being treated as
one under the management quota. Post as
fresh, once again, on 25.2.2020."

4. Learned Standing Counsel has
obtained instructions, according to which
the scholarship scheme formulated in the
year
2012
has
been
modified
vide
Government Orders dated 16.1.2018 and
26.6.2018, as also a clarificatory letter
issued by the Director, Department of
Social Welfare on 30.10.2019. It is stated
that the scheme contemplates payment of
fee reimbursement/scholarship to those
students who have been admitted as per
procedure laid down for admission i.e.
passing of entrance examination etc. and
the category of students like management
quota and spot admissions have clearly
been
excluded
from
the
benefit
of
scholarship under the scheme. It is also
sought to be urged that petitioners have not
participated in the counselling and having
been directly admitted by the management
they fall in the category of students who are
excluded from the purview of scholarship
scheme. It is also submitted that petitioners
having been directly admitted by the
college cannot assert any higher priority
than the students admitted in management
quota,
particularly
as
those
students
(management quota and spot counselling)
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have atleast cleared the joint entrance test
whereas petitioners have not.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners submits that the management
quota has already been specified in the
Government Order dated 26.6.2018 and
that petitioners cannot be treated to be
falling in that category. Learned Senior
Counsel has further invited attention of the
Court to a notice published by the
University on 6.7.2018, which refers to the
Government Order dated 16.1.2018. The
notice, as also the Government Order dated
16.1.2018, makes it explicit that all
admissions are to be made in the affiliated
colleges only pursuant to their registration
in the University and no admission could
be offered to a student unless he has got
himself registered on the website created
for the purpose by the University. It is
contended that petitioners have been
admitted after following the procedure laid
down in the notice dated 6.7.2018 and is
otherwise in accordance with Government
Order dated 16.1.2018. Submission is that a
new category cannot be carved out by the
State, at this stage, to deny benefit of
scholarship to petitioners, particularly when
such a contemplation otherwise neither
existed in the Rules of 2012 nor in any
Government Order.

6. I have heard Sri Anoop Trivedi,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Vibhu Rai for the petitioners, Sri Rohit
Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent University and learned Standing
Counsel for the State authorities.

7. I have examined the rival
contentions raised by the parties and have
also perused the materials placed on record
before me, including the Government
Orders dated 16.1.2018 and 26.6.2018. The
scheme for payment of scholarship was
notified by the State Government in the
year 2012 vide Rules of 2012 and the
entitlement to receive benefit of fee
reimbursement
has
been
enumerated
therein. The Rules of 2012 have not been
issued under any statutory provision and is
in effect in the nature of administrative
instruction/
Government
Order
dated
26.9.2012.
The
scholarship
scheme
contained in the Rules of 2012 has been
modified from time to time by issuing
subsequent
Government
Orders/instructions.
It
regulates
the
payment of scholarship to students and
various provisions have been introduced
from time to time, specifying the category
of students who would not be entitled to fee
reimbursement.

8. The admission to B.Tech. Course
in various engineering colleges in the State
of Uttar Pradesh is regulated by the State
Government by issuing Government Orders
from time to time. Ordinarily, such
government orders are issued for each
academic year. So far as admission to
B.Tech course in academic session 2018-19
is concerned, it is regulated by the
Government Order dated 16.1.2018. This
Government Order substantially retains the
admission procedure laid down for the
previous academic sessions. The admission
is to be offered in the engineering colleges
as per the merit of a candidate in the joint
entrance test to be conducted by the
concerned University as per counselling in
order to maintain transparency and fairness
in the process of admission itself. The seats
for admission are offered strictly based on
merits, as per the criteria laid down in the
Government Order dated 16.1.2018. Clause
2 of the Government Order is relevant for
the present purpose and is reproduced
hereinafter:-
7 All. Dheeru Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
401

"2- "Mk0 ,0ih0ts0 vCnqy dyke
izkfof/kd fo'ofo|ky;] m0iz0 y[kuÅ ds
fu;a=.kk/khu fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k@O;olkf;d
laLFkkvksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2018&19 esa fuEuor
izfdz;k fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS%&

1%
i(d)
'kkldh;
vunkfur
vfHk;a=.k
laLFkkuksa]
fo'ofo|ky;
d
?kVd@lg;qDr laLFkkuksa okLrqdyk ladk; vkfn
leLr laLFkkuksa esa izos'k ds lEcU/k eas iwoZ fu/kkZfjr
izfdz;k ;Fkkor jgsxhA

([k) 'kkldh; foRr iksf"kr@vuqnkfur
vfHk;a=.k laLFkkvksa esa dkmfUlfyax ds mijkUr
fjDRk lhVksa ij Nk=ksa ds izos'k gsrq 'kSf{kd l=
2018&19 eas LikV dkmfUlfyax djk;s tkus lEca/kh
LikV dkmfUlfyax dks 'kqfprkiw.kZ ,ao ikjn'khZ
djk;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls fuEufyf[kr izkfo/kkuksa
dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sxkA

(A) fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr
vfUre pj.k dh dkmfUlfyax ds i'pkr lHkh
'kkldh; laLFkkuksa esa fjDRk lhVksa ij dkmfUlfyax
)kjk ik;s x;s Nk=ksa dks vkUrfjd czkap ifjorZu
dk volj iznku fd;k tk; ,so mlds i'pkr
fjDr jg xbZ lhVksa dk fooj.k fdlh Hkh n'kk esa
fnukad 30-07-2018 rd fo'ofo|ky; dks miyC/k
dj fn;k tk;A

(B) izos'k ijh{kk dh jSad ds vk/kkj ij
esfjV fyLV rS;kj djrs gq, Li"V dkmfUlfyax
vkuykbu lEikfnr dh tk;sxhA

(C)
'kkldh;@'kkldh;
vuqnkfur
laLFkkuksa esa vfUre :i ls fjDr lhVksa ij dsoy mUgh
vgZ Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks ekSdk fn;k tk;] ftls fdlh
dkj.k o'k dkmfUlfyax esa dksbZ lhV vkoafVr u gqbZ
gks vFkok ftl Nk=@Nk=k us izos'k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dj
jSad izkIr dh gks vkSj dkmfUlfyax esa izfrHkkx u dj
ldk@ldh gks] vFkkZr Li"V dkmfUlfyax esa b.Vjuy
f'kfQ~aV ds i'pkr fjDr cph lhVksa ij ogh
Nk=@Nk=k;s izos'k gsrq vgZ gksxsa] ftUgsa dkmfUlfyax
)kjk dksbZ lhV vkoafVr u gqbZ gks vFkok ftuds )kjk
lhV vkoaVu ds i'pkr fu;e le; vof/k esa
withdrawl dj fy; x;k gksA

(ii) ;w0ih0 Mksfelkby (izns'k ds
vH;FkhZ)

futh fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k O;olkf;d
laLFkkvksa esa dqy 75 izfr'kr lhVsa ;wih,lbZbZ&2018
}kjk ;wih Mksfelkby vkosndksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA

(iii) uku ;w0ih0 Mksfelkby (izns'k ds
ckgj ds vH;FkhZ)

futh fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k @O;olkf;d
laLFkkvksa esa 10 izfr'kr lhVsa ,0vkbZ0bZ0bZ0bZ0 (tsbZbZ
esUl) vFkok ;wih,lbZbZ&2018 ds ek/;e ls uku ;wih
Mksfelkby vkosndksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA

(iv) eSustesUV@,u0vkj0vkbZ0 dksVk%&

futh fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k @O;olkf;d
laLFkkvksa esa 15 izfr'kr lhVs eSustesUV@,u0vkj0vkbZ0
dksVk izns'k ds vFkok izns'k ds ckgj ds Nk=ksa ls
;wih,lbZbZ vFkok ,vkbZbZbZ (tsbZbZ esUl) ds vk/kkj ij
Hkjh tk;sasxhA

(v) dkmfUlfyax ds mijkUr futh {ks= esa
Lfkkfir laLFkkvksa esa fjDr cph lhVksa ds izos'k gsrq laLFkk
Lrj ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izos'k gsrq fuEukuqlkj esfjV ds
vk/kkj ij ojh;rk iznkus dh tk;saxh%&

1 fo'ofo|ky; ls lEc) lHkh futh
vfHk;a=.k
,ao
O;olkf;d
laLFkkuksa
esa
;wih,lbZbZ&2018] tsbZbZ esUl] fdlh jkT; ljdkj
vFkok jk"Vah; Lrj ij vk;ksftr izos'k ijh{kk esa
mRrh.kZA

2 vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk
ifj"kn] ubZ fnYYkh )kjk le;≤ ij fofHkUu
ikB~;dzeksa esa izos'k gsrq ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr v|ru
izHkkoh vgZRkk (vuqyXud&,) ds vk/kkj ijA

mDr iz;kstu gsrq fo'ofo|ky; )kjk
,d iksVZYk vksisu fd;k tk;sxk] ftles
mijksDrkuqlkj mRrh.kZ Nk=@Nk=kvksa ls izkIrkadks
ds vk/kkj Ikj vkosnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxk ,ao
mudh ojh;rk lwph fo'ofo|ky; ds osclkbV ij
iznf'kZr dh tks;sxhA lEc) leLr futh
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vfHk;a=.k ,ao O;olkf;d laLFkkvksa }kjk mDr
iznf'kZr ojh;rk lwph es ls fjDr cph lhVksa ij
izos'k vuqeU; fd;k tk;sxkA"

9. The counselling process also
includes admission by the concerned
colleges on the basis of management/NRI
quota for which 15% seats have been
specifically
reserved.
The
15%
management/NRI quota seats can be
offered to students who are not domiciled
in the State of Uttar Pradesh and have
passed UPSEE or AIEEE (JEE Mains)
Examination. Spot counselling is also
allowed only for such students who have
cleared the Joint Entrance Test but have not
been able to secure admission on merits. It
is only after exhausting all seats available
for admission pursuant to counselling of
students who have qualified Joint Entrance
Test that admission is made permissible for
the students who have not qualified Joint
Entrance
Test
or
other
entrance
examination. The seats which are still left
after exhausting all rounds of counselling
can be offered to students as per their
merits
if they have got themselves
registered on the website of University
concerned. Preference is required to be
given to those students who have passed
UPSEE
Examination-2018,
JEE
examination
or
any
other
entrance
examination conducted by national or any
other state level agency. So far as
regulating the admission on left over seats
is concerned, a clear contemplation has
been made that such seats cannot be offered
unless the candidate gets himself registered
on the website of University concerned.
The object
of
registration
with
the
University is to retain some control by the
University with regard to identity of
students and to rule out any undesirable act
on part of the college in ignoring merit for
the purposes of grant of admission. The
registration of students with the University
for admission has apparently no concern
with the determination of merit or payment
of scholarship which is regulated by the
Rules of 2012.

10. The State Government has also
issued a subsequent Government Order on
26.6.2018 amending the Rules of 2012 vide
Seventh Amendment Rules, 2018. 'Fee' as
is defined in clause 5(xvii) of the Rules of
2012 has been amended in following
terms:-

"5(xvii)- "'kqYd" dk rkRi;Z ,slh
vfuok;Z /kujkf'k ls gS] tks vH;fFkZ;ksa n~okjk
laLFkku ;k fo'ofo|ky; vFkok cksMZ dks Hkqxrku
fd;k tkrk gS] rFkkfi tekurksa tek jkf'k tSlh
okil dh tkus okyh /kujkf'k blesa 'kkfey ugha
gksxhA 'kqYd ds vUrxZr izos'k@iathdj.k] ijh{kk]
f'k{kk] [ksy] ;wfu;u] ykbczsjh] if=dk] fpfdRlk
tkap vkSj ,sls vU; vfuok;Z o okil u dh tkus
okyh 'kqYd vkfn] tks l{ke Lrj ls vuqeU; gksa]
'kkfey gksxhA Nk=kokl@esl 'kqYd tSls 'kYd
blesa lfEefyr ugha gksxsaA

uksV%& 1 jktdh; o futh {ks= ds
f'k{k.k laLFkkukas esa ,d ikB~;dze esa ,d gh ckj esa
lEiw.kZ 'kqYd dh vuqefr leLr /kujkf'k Hkqxrku
fd;s tkus ij Nk=@Nk=k,a bl ;kstuk esa vik=
gksxsaA

uksV%& 2 fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ; f'k{k.k
laLFkku es izcU/kdh; dksVk lhV]LikV (spot)
izos'k lhV ds lkis{k izosf'kr Nk=@Nk=kvksa n~okjk
nkok fd;s x;s 'kqYd dh izfriwfrZ vuqekU; ugha
gksxh%"

11. Second note added to clause
5(xvii) clearly excludes a student admitted
in
the
management
quota
or
spot
counselling from the benefit of fee
reimbursement under the Rules of 2012.
The
second
note
contained
in
the
Government Order dated 26.6.2018 is not
7 All. Dheeru Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
403
under challenge. The interpretation of this
clause is warranted in the facts of the
present case as the petitioners contend that
this note will not be attracted upon them
inasmuch as their admission is neither in
the management quota nor in the spot
admission category.

12. The Government Order dated
16.1.2018 which lays down the procedure
for admission, will have to be analyzed in
accordance with the Rules of 2012, as
amended vide Government Order dated
26.6.2018, in order to appreciate the
controversy raised in the matter. It is
apparent
that
the
admission
process
contemplates grant of admission to students
based upon their merit determined in the
Joint Entrance Examination. The students
belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled
tribe category, who are offered admission
in the academic session 2018-19 as per
their merit determined in Joint Entrance
Text, followed by their admission in the
counselling alone are entitled to payment of
scholarship as per the amended Rules of
2012. The Rules of 2012, as amended on
26.6.2018 is not under challenge. The
admissions offered to students in the
management quota or spot counselling have
been denied benefit of fee reimbursement
under the Rules of 2012 for the academic
session 2018-19. The object behind denial
of scholarship to students admitted in the
management quota or in the spot admission
category is apparently to restrict the benefit
of scholarship to such students who have
competed in their category and have
secured admission based on merits. The
scholarship scheme has been envisaged by
the State with the object of facilitating and
encouraging grant of higher education to
the students belonging to scheduled caste
and scheduled tribe category who are
otherwise meritorious and are not able to
pursue their studies only because of lack of
funds/means.
The
scheme,
therefore,
clearly makes out a distinction between
those who have been admitted purely on
the basis of their merits and those who have
been admitted in management quota/spot
counselling. A higher fee is otherwise
payable to the educational institution by the
students admitted in the management quota
and the object is to facilitate generation of
funds by private colleges to meet its
requirements. Admission in management
quota has otherwise been made permissible
by the Apex Court in various judgements
including Modern Dental College and
Research Centre and others vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, (2010) 14
SCC 186. The distinction carved out by the
State in the matter of payment of
scholarship under the Rules of 2012, based
on merits of the students determined in the
Joint Entrance Test and the consequential
process of admission by way of counselling
has an intelligible differentia and a definite
object to achieve which cannot be termed
as arbitrary.

13. The petitioners cannot arrogate to
themselves a higher status/merit than the
students admitted in the management quota
or spot counselling round. Petitioners have
admittedly not qualified the Joint Entrance
Examination and have been admitted only
against
the
seats
left
vacant
after
exhausting
the
counselling
process
(including management quota and spot
counselling). It is already noticed that
students admitted in management quota or
spot counselling have to pass the Joint
Entrance Examination and their merit
would have to be treated higher than the
students who are directly offered admission
against the left over seats like the
petitioners. The mere fact that petitioners
got
themselves
registered
with
the
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
University for admission will not enhance
their merits.

14. The payment of scholarship as per
the Rules of 2012 is not a matter of right
and ultimately remains to be considered in
accordance with the scheme. Once the
scheme itself makes a conscious distinction
between those who are admitted on the
strength of their merits in the Joint
Entrance
Examination
followed
by
counselling, vis-a-vis those who have
secured admission under management
quota or spot admission category, no claim
of parity can be sought. The petitioners
contend that they do not belong to
management quota and are also not in the
category
of
spot
admission
in
the
counselling. Petitioners' merit based on the
nature of admission offered to them places
them in a category inferior to that of a
student admitted in management quota/spot
counselling category. Since the Rules of
2012, as amended on 26.6.2018, excludes
the
students
placed
in
management
quota/spot counselling from the benefit of
fee reimbursement under the Rules of 2012,
the petitioners, placed lower in merit,
cannot claim payment of scholarship under
the Rules of 2012. In case the argument of
Sri Trivedi is accepted then it would result
in an arbitrary situation where students
placed lower in merit will be entitled to
payment of scholarship while students
higher in merit placed in management
quota/spot counselling will be denied such
benefit. The claim of petitioners, therefore,
must fail.

15. The position otherwise appears to
have been further clarified by the State vide
Government Order dated 14.10.2019 as per
which
the
entitlement
to
receive
scholarship to the students belonging to
management quota has entirely been done
away with. Even otherwise, petitioners
have not secured admission on the strength
of their merit to be determined in the Joint
Entrance Examination result. In such
circumstances, if the State has denied
consideration to petitioners' claim for grant
of scholarship, no exception can be taken to
it.

16. Writ petitioner, therefore, lacks
merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A404
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ A No. 4087 of 2020

Ramhari Gurjar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Seemant Singh, Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India - Article 16 -
Recruitment - Examination - Rectification
of
error
-
whiling
filling
online
examination form - petitioner not filled
column-10
of
the
form
regarding
Viklangta/Vishesh
Arakshan
(Handicapped/Special Reservation) - On
qualifying eligibility test, petitioner prayed
to permit him to make correction in the
form & make claim regarding Special
Reservation/Handicapped
Category

-
Held

-once
benefit
of
horizontal
reservation
under
the
Physically
Handicapped Quota not claimed at the
initial stage, column for which always
existed in recruitment process, petitioner
cannot be permitted to claim reservation