# Dinesh Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 658
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-23
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 5511 of 2015
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-chandra-tripathi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45486
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law
-U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools
(Juniors
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978: Rule 7 - Practice &
Procedure -A person who applies for
appointment on a post in response to an
advertisement
is
precluded
from
challenging the selection on the ground of
defect in the advertisement. (Para 9)

Instead of challenging the advertisements on
the ground that it was not published in two daily
newspapers as provided under Rule 7 of the
Rules, 1978, he had applied for the post of
Assistant
Teachers
in
response
to
the
Advertisements
dated
10.05.2015
and
14.05.2015. The petitioner had chosen not to
participate in the interview, which was held on
31.05.2015 as per schedule advertised in the
aforesaid advertisement. Once the petitioner
had chosen not to participate in the
interview, he is neither a person aggrieved
nor an affected party. (Para 7)

Writ Petition rejected. (E-10)

## Text

658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 20.04.2020 passed by the
respondent No.4-I.G.-cum- Principal Chief
Security
Commissioner/
RPF
N.C.
Railway, Prayagraj is liable to be set aside
and is set aside.

39. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the respondents to
execute the following directions:

i). The appoinment of the petitioner
shall be processed in light of the
observations made in this judgment.

ii). The appointment letter shall be
issued to him in accordance with law.

iii). The petitioner shall be given the
seniority, he would have been entitled to
but for his cancellation of his candidature
by the impugned order.

40. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A658
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 5511 of 2015

Dinesh Chandra Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Devki
Nandan
Srivastava,
Abhishek
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jyoti Sikka.

A. Civil Law
-U.P. Recognized Basic
Schools
(Juniors
High
Schools)
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of
Teachers) Rules, 1978: Rule 7 - Practice &
Procedure -A person who applies for
appointment on a post in response to an
advertisement
is
precluded
from
challenging the selection on the ground of
defect in the advertisement. (Para 9)

Instead of challenging the advertisements on
the ground that it was not published in two daily
newspapers as provided under Rule 7 of the
Rules, 1978, he had applied for the post of
Assistant
Teachers
in
response
to
the
Advertisements
dated
10.05.2015
and
14.05.2015. The petitioner had chosen not to
participate in the interview, which was held on
31.05.2015 as per schedule advertised in the
aforesaid advertisement. Once the petitioner
had chosen not to participate in the
interview, he is neither a person aggrieved
nor an affected party. (Para 7)

Writ Petition rejected. (E-10)

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned State Counsel for the
respondent and Smt. Jyoti Sikka, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.

2. The notice was issued to the
respondent
nos.
4
and
5,
whose
appointments are under challenge and as
per the office report dated 25.01.2016, the
notice is sufficient but no one has filed
vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent
nos. 4 and 5.

3. The petitioner has submitted that
the
Manager
Shivraji
Janta
Laghu
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Lalpur, Ayodhya,
Shrawasti had published an advertisement
for appointment on the post of Assistant
Teachers in daily news paper Aaj on
14.05.2015 and on 10.05.2015 in Bhinga
Times.

4. It is submitted that as per Rule 7 of
the U.P Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
12 All. Dinesh Chandra Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659
High
Schools)
(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules,
1978 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules,
1978)
the
advertisement
has
to
be
published in two daily news papers,
whereas it was published in two news
papers i.e. daily news paper Aaj and
weekly newspaper Bhinga Times. It is
further submitted that the last date of
submitting the application provided in the
advertisement
was
25.05.2015.
The
petitioner had duly applied within time on
21.05.2015. The interviews were held on
31.05.2015 as per schedule provided in the
advertisement.

5. It is further submitted that the
application forms of respondent nos. 4 and
5 were received on 26.05.2015 i.e. after the
last date provided for submitting the
application
form,
the
committee
of
management
of
the
institution
has
appointed the respondent nos. 4 and 5. In
view of the aforesaid, the selection of the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 is bad and is liable
to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel
for the B.S.A. has submitted that petitioner
in pursuance of the advertisement dated
10.05.2015 and 14.05.2015 had submitted
his application for appointment on the post
of Assistant Teachers. The petitioner had
not participated in the interview and once
the petitioner had chosen not to turn up for
the interview, he had given up his right to
challenge the appointment of respondent
nos. 4 and 5.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, it is found that the petitioner, in
place of challenging the advertisements on
the ground that it was not published in two
daily news paper as provided under Rule 7
of the Rules, 1978, he had applied for the
post of Assistant Teachers in response to
the advertisements dated 10.05.2015 and
14.05.2015. The petitioner had chosen not
to participate in the interview, which was
held on 31.05.2015, as per schedule
advertise
in
the
advertisement
dated
10.05.2015
&
15.05.2015.
Once
the
petitioner had chosen not to participate in
the interview, he is neither a person
aggrieved nor an affected party. The
petitioner has no right to challenge the
selection of respondent nos. 4 and 5 after
having acted upon in pursuance of the
advertisement, now the petitioner can not
challenge the same.

8. The petitioner, in writ petition has
no where pleaded that he had gone to
participate in the interview but he was not
permitted to participate in the same. Even
in the para 26 of the counter affidavit, it has
specifically been pleaded that petitioner
was absent at the time of interview. This
fact has not been rebutted on the other hand
the statement was made on 20.07.2020 in
the Court that no rejoinder affidavit is
required to be filed in this regard.

9. A person who applies for
appointment on a post in response to an
advertisement
is
precluded
from
challenging the selection on the ground of
defect in the advertisement. He acquiesces
to the advertisement made and having
taken advantage of the same in response
thereto cannot turn around to point out in
the
manner
of
publication
of
the
advertisement.

10. Yet again, it may be observed that
in case a candidate after having applied for
appointment for a post later voluntarily
chooses not to appear in the interview i.e.
the selection process has no locus to
challenge the appointments of selected
candidates.
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly,
it is dismissed.
----------
(2020)12ILR A660
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ A No. 5537 of 2020

Sumit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Radha Kant Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Sri Rohit
Singh, Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-
application-seeking quashing of result of
PGT examination where the correctness of
an answer key is called in questionpetitioner failed to establish a patent or
palpable
error-the
onus
is
on
the
candidate to not only demonstrate that
the key answer is incorrect but also that it
is a glaring mistake which is totally
apparent and no inferential process or
reasoning is required to show that the key
answer is wrong-the constitutional courts
must exercise great restraint in such
matters
and
should
be
reluctant to
entertain
a
plea
challenging
the
correctness of the key answers..(Para 2 to
13)

B. In the instant case, principal dispute is
raised with respect to Question No. 35 and
various options were provided by the
examining authority. Question No. 35
required candidates to indicate the main
objective of cost accounting. Petitioner
has chosen "B" to be the correct answer
while the answer key prepared by the
respondents indicated the correct answer
to be "C". When there are conflicting
views, then the court must bow down to
the opinion of experts-judges are not
experts in all fields-they must exercise
great restraint and should not overstep
their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of
the experts. (Para 9)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. UPSC Vs Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254

2. Ran Vijay Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC
357

3. BSSC Vs Arun Kumar, (2020) 6 SCC 362

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. The instant petition has been
preferred seeking quashing of the final
result of the PGT Examination 2016 for
recruitment of Lecturers in Commerce. The
principal dispute is raised with respect to
Question No.35 and the various options
which were provided for that question by
the examining authority.

3.

Question
No.
35
required
candidates to indicate the main objective of
cost accounting. Admittedly the petitioner
while attempting that question has chosen
'B' to be the correct answer while the
answer key which was prepared by the
respondents indicated the correct answer to
be 'C'.

4. Pursuant to the interim directions
issued on this petition, the respondents
have filed a counter affidavit in which they
state that the said question was sent for the
opinion of the Subject Expert who has