# Pratap Singh v. U.P. Public Service

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 56
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-05-19
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pratap-singh-v-u-p-public-service-39543
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

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
3All] Smt. Saroj Jaiswal & another V.D.M., Kanpur Nagar & others
57
accepted
notice
on
behalf
of
the
respondent No.3.

2. Petitioner are aggrieved by the
attachment
of
their
properties
in
connection with the realisation of alleged
due
of
respondent
No.
3
against
respondent No.4. The attachment has been
effected under the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter called the
Act. In pursuance of the attachment
properties under attachment are also
notified for auction.

3. The provisions contained under
Sections 282 and 341 of the Act clearly
indicate that the provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called
the
Code,
including
the
provisions
contained in Order XXI of the code, are
applicable. If any objection is filed against
the attachment by any objector, the
authority effecting the attachment is under
obligation to decide the objection before
proceeding further in the matter in
pursuance of the attachment. Neither Shri
Chandra
Prakash,
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent No.3 nor Shri
Sanjay
Goswami,
learned
Standing
Counsel of the State of U.P. representing
the respondents No.1 and to has been able
to dispute this position of law.

4. It is stated at bar that the
petitioners have filed objection but the
concerned authority has not disposed of
the same and is proceeding further in the
matter. If it is really so, the situation is
deplorable.

5. The court expects that the
concerned authority shall adhere to and
obey the provisions of law by deciding the
objection of the petitioners against the
attachment before proceeding in the matter
further. Indeed, Shri Sanjay Goswami,
learned Standing Counsel of the State of
U.P. representing the respondents No. 1
and 2, assures that law shall be strictly
adhered to by the authority concerned.

Subject to what has been said above,
the petition is disposed of finally.

A certified copy this order may be
given to the learned counsel for the parties
within 24 hours on payment of usual
changes.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -8/<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R
 RI

+DU *RSDO -DLVZDO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ([FLVH 2IILFHU
 RWKHUV
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 7DUXQ $JDUZDO
6KUL 6XGKLU &KDQGUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 3UDERGK *DXU
6KUL +5 0LVUD
6KUL 3. %LVDULD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
5HFRYHU\ 3URFHHGLQJV LQLWLDWHG DW WKH OLIH
WLPH RI WKH IDWKHU RI 3HWLWLRQHU ± DIWHU
GHDWK ZLWKRXW VXEVWLWXWLQJ WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
RU
ZLWKRXW
DPHQGPHQW
LQ
5HFRYHU\
3URFHHGLQJ FDQ QRW EH HQIRUFHG DJDLQVW
WKH KDLUV