# Ramhari Gurjar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 404
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4087 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramhari-gurjar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45906
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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
7 All. Ramhari Gurjar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
405
under the special category at subsequent
stage - On merits, Disability Certificate
issued after about 6 months from date of
appearance in the Written Examination -
Rectification cannot be allowed (Para 9, 11)
Dismissed. (E-5)

List of cases cited :

## Text

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
7 All. Ramhari Gurjar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
405
under the special category at subsequent
stage - On merits, Disability Certificate
issued after about 6 months from date of
appearance in the Written Examination -
Rectification cannot be allowed (Para 9, 11)
Dismissed. (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. Raghvendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
Special Appeal No.156 of 2019 06.05.2020

2. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State of U.P.

2. Present petition has been filed with
the following prayer:-

"Issue writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus directing the
Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board,
Prayagraj to consider the selection of the
petitioner in reference to selection on
69000 posts of Assistant Teacher to be
appointed in different Primary Schools of
different districts of the State of Uttar
Pradesh under Physically Handicapped
Quota of OBC Category initiated vide
Government Order dated 13.05.2020 issued
by Special Secretary, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow within stipulated period of time as
fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. The petitioner has appeared in the
examination
conducted
by
the
State
Government
being
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination,
2019
(hereinafter referred to as ATRE-2019). The
petitioner had filled up the application
form, wherein admittedly he had not
disclosed any kind of reservation insofar as
his present claim regarding horizontal
reservation in the Handicapped Quota is
concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has admitted this fact that he has not filled
up column-10 of the form for appearing in
the
ATRE-2019
which
is
regarding
Viklangta/Vishesh
Arakshan
(Handicapped/Special
Reservation).
Admittedly, by not filing up this column,
no reservation was claimed in this category
by the petitioner. This fact is admitted to
learned counsel for the petitioner. He was
issued Admit Card for appearing in the
ATRE-2019 (Annexure-2 to the Writ
Petition). A perusal of the aforesaid Admit
Card clearly discloses the date of Written
Examination as 06.01.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further admitted that the application
form for appearing in the aforesaid
examination was filled up by the petitioner
prior to 22nd December, 2018. It is also
admitted that the petitioner has obtained
Disability Certificate from the Office of
Chief
Medical
Officer,
Mathura
on
08.07.2019, whereby he has been shown to
be suffering from 42% permanent physical
impairment due to accidental
injury.
Clearly, this Certificate was obtained after
about 8 months from the date of filing of
the application form for appearing in the
ATRE-2019, wherein the petitioner has
admittedly not claimed any reservation in
Handicapped Quota/Special Reservation.
This Disability Certificate has been issued
after about 6 months from date of
appearance in the Written Examination.
Pursuant to the issuance of Government
Order
dated
13.05.2020,
recruitment
process was started and the Secretary U.P.
Basic Education Board, Prayagraj also
issued a Notification dated 16.05.2020
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allowing the qualified candidates to submit
their
online
application
form
from
18.05.2020
to
26.05.2020,
which
is
Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition.

6. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that no option is made
available to the petitioner for correcting the
Special
Category/Reservation
i.e.
physically Handicapped Category in this
online application form. It has been
categorically stated by learned counsel for
the petitioner that in this application form
(Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition), columns
1-13 are identical as existed in the
application form (which is not annexed
with the petition) which was filled by the
petitioner at the time of applying for online
application for appearing in the ATRE2019. He further submits that earlier he has
admittedly not claimed any reservation in
column-10 of the said application form that
he is a physically handicapped person or is
claiming any special reservation and since
there
was
no
modification
in
the
application form, therefore, he has been
deprived of making claim regarding Special
Reservation/Handicapped
Category.
He
submits that the claim of the petitioner is
liable to be considered and he is liable to be
permitted to make correction in the form
and to make claim regarding his Special
Reservation/Handicapped
Category.
He
further submits that there are two stages of
the entire exercise and both the stages are
entirely different. One is the stage of the
Eligibility Test for which he has filled up
the online form for appearing before the
Examination Authority and second stage is
the recruitment process, therefore, he is
liable to be permitted to make correction in
the form for special reservation being
extended to him. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court dated 06.05.2020 in Special Appeal
No.156 of 2019 (Raghvendra Pratap Singh
Vs. State of U.P. And others) along with
other connected Special Appeals. He has
drawn attention to the paragraphs 65-69 of
the Judgment. Submission, therefore, is that
such benefit is to be extended in the light of
the observation made by Hon'ble Division
Bench at the stage of recruitment process.

7. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel submits that it is a continuous
process and in continuation of process of
recruitment,
online
applications
were
invited for appearing in the ATRE-2019. He
submits that it is only for this purpose and
reason, the identical forms were provided
and the Quality Point Marks are fixed on
the basis of that result of the ATRE-2019
only. Therefore, there can be no doubt that
it is a continuous process. He further
submits that on the facts of the present case
also, the petitioner is not entitled for
consideration
of
his
claim.
Learned
Standing Counsel further submits that the
arguments of the petitioner that the
petitioner is entitled for correction of the
details and claim cannot be considered as it
was never claimed earlier and the identical
arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner have already been rejected by
this Court in Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Vs. State of U.P. And others.

8. I have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
record.

9. On perusal of record, I find that
admittedly, the petitioner has filled up his
application form for appearing in the
Sahayak Adhyapak Bharti Pariksha-2019
i.e.
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination-2019 (ATRE-2019). He has
also appeared in the Written Examination
7 All. Ramhari Gurjar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
407
held on 06.01.2019. It is admitted to the
learned counsel for the petitioner and also
as reflected from perusal of paragraph-2 of
the writ petition, the petitioner, although,
has claimed reservation in the category of
OBC as disclosed in column-9 of the
application form as reflected on Annexure9 at page 83 of the Writ Petition, but
column-10 regarding Special Reservation
was not filled up. It is admitted to the
petitioner that the columns no.1-13 are
identical in nature as given at page 83 (after
issuance
of
the
Notification
dated
16.05.2020) and the details as given which
were required to be filled up at the time of
applying for ATRE-2019. In column-10 of
the application form the petitioner had
never claimed Special Reservation under
the Handicapped Quota at the time of
applying for ATRE-2019. Therefore, it is
clear that petitioner has claimed vertical
reservation in the OBC category, however,
he
has
not
claimed
any
horizontal
reservation of the Physically Handicapped
Quota in the selection process of 69,000
posts of Assistant Teacher. It is not in
dispute that Quality Point Marks were fixed
as per the ATRE-2019. Further, heading of
the application form (Annexure-9) at page
83 clearly mentions that this is an
application form to be filled up by the
candidates who have cleared ATRE-2019.
It also mentions the number of candidates
i.e. 1,46,060 candidates. The heading is
"Parishadiya Prathmik Vidyalyayee 69000
Sahayak Adhyapako Ki Bharti Hetu Aayojit
Likhit
Pariksha
me
Uttirna
146060
Abhyarthiyo ke Niyukti Hetu Aavedan
Patra ka Print." It, therefore, cannot be
disputed that it is a continuous process
which started with the filling up application
form for appearing in the ATRE-2019 and
petitioner had not claimed any horizontal
reservation in Handicapped Quota at the
time of filing of the application form.
Insofar as the case of the petitioner is
concerned, it is also pertinent to note that
admittedly,
he
filled
up
the
online
application form prior to 22nd December,
2018. He was issued Admit Card which
discloses the date of Written Examination
as 06.01.2019. However, his Disability
Certificate was issued by the Office of
Chief Medical Officer, Mathura, U.P. on
08.07.2019, which admittedly, was issued
for the first time after about 6 months from
the date of his appearance in the Written
Examination. Therefore, on merits also, the
claim of the petitioner for incorporation of
his claim for Special Reservation under the
Physically Handicapped Quota cannot be
permitted to be agitated at this stage. In
Writ-A No.4070 of 2020 (Ashutosh Kumar
Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. And others),
the similar arguments regarding permitting
corrections were considered and prayer for
such correction has already been rejected
by this Court.

10. In Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
(Supra) also prayer was for granting an
opportunity to rectify the incorrect entries
made by the petitioners in their online
application form of ATRE-2019. It was
further prayed that respondents be directed
to consider the claim of the petitioner for
selection on the basis of original education
testimonials. After considering various
Hon'ble Division Bench and Hon'ble
Supreme Court Judgments rendered in the
cases of Km. Archana Rastogi Vs. State
of U.P. And others 2012 (3) ADJ 219,
Km. Richa Pandey V. Examination
Regulatory
Authority
and
Another
decided on 18.02.2014, Ram Manohar
Yadav V. State of U.P. And 3 others
decided on 30.05.2013, Arti Verma V.
State of U.P. And 2 others, Kanchan Bala
& 172 Ors. V. State of U.P. & 4 Ors., Jai
Karan Singh and 52 others Vs. State of
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. And 4 others and Karnataka Public
Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B.M.
Vijaya Shankar and Ors. reported in
AIR 1992 SC 952, the petition was
dismissed. I do not wish to burden my
judgment by quoting or refering to them
again. However, paragraphs 18 and 20 of
Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (Supra) are
quoted as under:-

"18. In so far as the cases cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioners
are concerned, the same will not help the
petitioners since in large number of cases
observations were duly made by different
Division Benches of this Court that in case
any mistake
was
committed
by
the
candidates
during
the
course
of
examination, the writ court will not
interfere in the matter.

20. The error committed by the
candidates cannot be said to be human in
nature. The petitioners should have read
the instructions that were issued time and
again and should have correctly filled the
entries relating to the marks obtained by
them in their previous examinations. The
contention that this was an error committed
by the Computer Operator cannot simply
be accepted. If the Courts were to accept
such a plea of the petitioners, then this
would result in a situation where the
petitioners would get the benefit of a wrong
if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if
noticed the petitioners could always turn
around and claim that this was a result of a
human error. Each candidate necessarily
must bear the consequences of his failure to
fill up the application form correctly. From
perusal of the record, I am of the opinion
that the error/errors committed by the
petitioners are neither minor nor are
human error/errors."(Emphasis Supplied)

11. Insofar as the observation of
Hon'ble Division Bench in Raghuvendra
Pratap Singh (Supra) is concerned, the
same are of no help to the petitioner as
admittedly, the question of claim of
Shiksha
Mitras
to
grant
benefit
of
weightage in the 1981 Rules was under
consideration and, thus, the said judgment
turns on its own facts and is clearly not
applicable in this case in the light of the
facts of this case and the issue involved
herein. Insofar as claiming the benefit of
horizontal reservation under the Physically
Handicapped Quota is concerned, this
column always existed in recruitment
process and once it has not been claimed at
the initial stage, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to claim reservation under the
special category, provision for disclosure
whereof was provided at the initial stage
itself.

12. The petition is devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)07ILR A408
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Service Single No. 9690 of 2020

Munna Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ravi Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.