# Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 336
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-01
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 9377 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukesh-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52325
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - The U.P. Public Service
Commission
Advertisement,
2023
-
Rejection
of
Candidature
for
NonSubmission of Offline Application Form
and Documents within Prescribed Time
Limit - If a candidate fails to submit either
application or requisite documents up to
the
last
date
prescribed
under
the
advertisement, no further opportunity can
be afforded to such candidate and for such
negligence, may be due to inadvertence,
subsequently application at the instance
of such candidate cannot be allowed -
once the conditions stipulated under the
advertisement
are
not
fulfilled
the
department cannot be held liable for the
same and candidate will have to suffer.
(Para - 5)

Petitioner applied for Assistant Private Secretary
position
in
U.P.
Secretariat
online
-
advertisement required applicants to submit a
8 All. Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
337
hard copy of their application form and required
documents by April 5, 2024 - qualified for
preliminary examination - failed to submit offline
application form and documents within deadline
- Commission rejected his candidature due to
the non-submission of documents. (Para - 2,3)

HELD: - Petitioner failed to submit offline
application form and documents within the
prescribed time limit. Candidature rejection
upheld. (Para - 6 ,8,9)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the action was essentially of a private
character.

76. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold that the learned Single
Judge of the High Court was justified in
taking the view that the original writ
application filed by Respondent 1 herein
under Article 226 of the Constitution is not
maintainable. The appeal court could be
said to have committed an error in taking a
contrary view."

(Emphasis added)

18. After quoting the aforesaid law
laid down in St. Mary's case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in Army Welfare
Education Society v. Sunil Kumar
Sharma that: -

"42. In view of the aforesaid,
nothing more is required to be discussed in
the present appeals. We are of the view that
the High Court committed an egregious
error in entertaining the writ petition filed
by the respondents herein holding that the
appellant society is a "State" within Article
12 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, the
school run by the Appellant Society imparts
education. Imparting education involves
public duty and therefore public law
element could also be said to be involved.
However, the relationship between the
respondents herein and the appellant
society is that of an employee and a private
employer arising out of a private contract.
If there is a breach of a covenant of a
private contract, the same does not touch
any public law element. The school cannot
be said to be discharging any public duty in
connection with the employment of the
respondents."

19. In view of the aforesaid
pronouncement of law by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the Writ Petition filed by
the petitioner seeking continuance and
regularization of her contractual service in
Army Public School after termination
thereof due to efflux of contract period, is
not maintainable and it is dismissed as such
at the admission stage itself.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 336
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 9377 of 2024

Mukesh Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Thakur Prasad Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., M.N. Singh

(A) Service Law - The U.P. Public Service
Commission
Advertisement,
2023
-
Rejection
of
Candidature
for
NonSubmission of Offline Application Form
and Documents within Prescribed Time
Limit - If a candidate fails to submit either
application or requisite documents up to
the
last
date
prescribed
under
the
advertisement, no further opportunity can
be afforded to such candidate and for such
negligence, may be due to inadvertence,
subsequently application at the instance
of such candidate cannot be allowed -
once the conditions stipulated under the
advertisement
are
not
fulfilled
the
department cannot be held liable for the
same and candidate will have to suffer.
(Para - 5)

Petitioner applied for Assistant Private Secretary
position
in
U.P.
Secretariat
online
-
advertisement required applicants to submit a
8 All. Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
337
hard copy of their application form and required
documents by April 5, 2024 - qualified for
preliminary examination - failed to submit offline
application form and documents within deadline
- Commission rejected his candidature due to
the non-submission of documents. (Para - 2,3)

HELD: - Petitioner failed to submit offline
application form and documents within the
prescribed time limit. Candidature rejection
upheld. (Para - 6 ,8,9)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajendra Patel Vs St. of U.P. & anr., AIR 2015
All 161 (FB)

2. Nirbhay Kumar Vs U.P. Public Service
Commission, (Special Appeal No.- 541 of 2014

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

1. Heard Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the
U.P. Public Service Commission.

2. Petitioner before this Court has
been an applicant against the advertisement
issued for the post of Assistant Private
Secretary in U.P. Secretariat advertised by
the U.P. Public Service Commission on
19th September, 2023. It was prescribed
under the advertisement that soon after
submitting the online application, the
printout of the hard copy of the said
application shall be drawn by the petitioner
and shall submit all the requisite documents
regarding essential qualification on or
before 5th April, 2024. It was further
noticed under the advertisement that
beyond the prescribed date no application
will be entertained.

3. It is an admitted case of the
petitioner that he could not submit the
offline
application
form
along
with
documents but he submits that since it was
a sheer mistake inadvertently committed
and since he had qualified the preliminary
examination his candidature ought not to
have been cancelled.

4. Per contra, it is submitted by
learned counsel appearing for the U.P.
Public Service Commission that under the
advertisement there was a clear condition
stipulated that till 5:00 pm on 5th April,
2024 the hard copy of the application
should be submitted along with documents
and if it were not submitted/ deposited in
the office of Public Service Commission,
then no further time will be allowed and no
application
shall
be
entertained
subsequently.

5. Sri Om has argued that it is settled
legal position that if a candidate fails to
submit either application or requisite
documents up to the last date prescribed
under
the
advertisement,
no
further
opportunity can be afforded to such
candidate and for such negligence, may be
due
to
inadvertence,
subsequently
application
at
the
instance
of
such
candidate cannot be allowed. He has also
placed reliance upon the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of
Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P. and
another, AIR 2015 All 161 (FB), where a
candidate failed to submit the offline form
within the prescribed period. In the said
judgment the Court has very categorically
held that once the conditions stipulated
under the advertisement are not fulfilled the
department cannot be held liable for the
same and candidate will have to suffer.

6. I have perused the records and find
it to be an admitted position that petitioner
in his knowledge failed to submit offline
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applications
along
with
requisite
documents
to
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission till 5:00 of the last date i.e. 5th
April, 2024. The Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Rajendra Patel (supra) was
constituted to decide following reference:

"Where the Commission requires
the submission of an online application as
well as the submission of a hard copy of the
application together with all the requisite
documents by a prescribed last date and
candidates are placed on notice that the
candidature of an applicant who has failed
to complete all the prescribed stages by the
last date would be rejected, would it be a
correct position in law to hold that the
Commission is bound to entertain the
application though the hard copy together
with the documents was received after the
last date prescribed merely on the ground
that the documents had been dispatched
before the last date of the receipt of the
application."

7. Holding the judgment of Division
Bench in the case of Nirbhay Kumar v.
U.P. Public Service Commission (Special
Appeal No.- 541 of 2014 decided on 30th
May, 2014) not to be laying down correct
law, the Full Bench (supra) making
observations upon the principles of law on
the point, concluded thus:

"Even on merits, we are not
inclined to accept the correctness of the
principle which has been laid down in
Nirbhay Kumar (supra) that the submission
of a hard copy of the application together
with the accompanying documents is
merely an act of confirmation of the
application. The view which has found
acceptance in Nirbhay Kumar (supra)
would,
in
our
view,
dislocate
the
examination process and would render the
process
which
is
conducted by
the
Commission in a perpetual state of
uncertainty. We are, with respect, in
agreement with the view which was
expressed by the Division Bench in Raj
Narayan Singh (supra) decided on 18
February 2015.

Reliance was also sought to be
placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court
in Dolly Chhanda Vs Chairman, JEE. In
Dolly Chhanda (supra), the Supreme Court
has observed that the general rule is that
while applying for any course of study or
post, a person must possess the eligibility
qualification on the last date fixed for such
purpose either in the admission brochure
or in the application form, as the case may
be, unless there is an express provision to
the contrary. The Supreme Court held that
there could be no relaxation in the matter
of
holding
the
requisite
eligibility
qualification by the date fixed. However,
depending upon the facts of the case, there
can be some relaxation in the matter of
submitting proof and it may not be proper
to apply a rigid principle which may
pertain to the domain of procedure. Hence,
every infraction of the rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily
result in the rejection of the candidature.
These principles which have been laid
down are not in dispute and they cannot be.
However, the issue in the present case is
whether the submission of a hard copy by
the specified date together with all the
documents was merely a matter of
procedure. To accept the submission of the
petitioner would, as we have held earlier,
result in a situation where a candidate
would be entitled to assert that despite the
stipulated last date and a prescribed
consequence of invalidation which has
been drawn to the notice of the candidates,
the Commission would be bound to
scrutinise applications which are received
8 All. Brijesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
339
together with the hard copies beyond the
prescribed date. This, in our view, would
not be permissible. We may also note that
in a judgment in Secretary, UP Public
Service
Commission
Vs
S
Krishna
Chaitanya', the Supreme Court has held
that the Commission cannot be directed to
declare
the
final
results
when
the
application form of a candidate had not
been received within the prescribed period.

For these reasons, we hold that
where
the
Commission
requires
the
submission of a hard copy of the online
application together with all accompanying
documents by a prescribed last date and
has clearly placed the candidates on notice
of the fact that an application which is
submitted beyond the last date together
with the prescribed documents would result
in the invalidation of the candidature, the
condition which has been imposed by the
Commission would have to be scrupulously
observed. It would not be open to the Court
to hold that notwithstanding such a clear
condition, an application which has not
been received by the last date should be
entertained. The Commission has given an
option to candidates of submitting their
applications in the hard copy by either of
the two modes, namely by registered post
or by personal delivery. A candidate who
has opted for one of the two modes, is
required to comply with the condition that
all the requisite four stages are completed
within the time stipulated."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not cite any authority disputing the
proposition of law as discussed in the
aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this
Court.

9. In view of the above settled legal
position, I do not find any justification to
grant indulgence in the matter.

10. Petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 339
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 9577 of 2006

Brijesh Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. L.P. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Service Law - The Police Act, 1861 -
The U.P. Police Regulations - recruitment
of Constables - Illegal and malicious
actions by authorities can be challenged -
Government
orders
and
medical
certification
override
initial
disqualifications - Right to consequential
benefits. (Para - 25,26, 35 to 38)

Petitioner applied for a Constable position (in
year 1994) - initially rejected due to a chest
measurement issue - found short by 1 cm -
Despite meeting eligibility criteria and repeated
court orders in their favor - Superintendent of
Police delayed and refused appointment -
prompting multiple writ petitions and contempt
cases
- court found evidence of willful
disobedience and bias - ordering charges
against the Superintendent and others. (Para - 1
to 16)

HELD: - Non-enlistment of petitioner as a
recruit constable in 1994 was illegal, arbitrary,
capricious, and malicious. Impugned order set
aside. Petitioner be treated in service as
Constable from the date from which the
selectee's of 1994 recruits as Constable have