# Rampal Bhartiya & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 61
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 1620 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rampal-bhartiya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46021
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Recruitment/Public
Examination - Candidates must be clearly
aware of the fact that it is not open to a
candidate to decide as to when an
application should be submitted and the
compliance in time schedule, indicated as
mandatory, if not read to be mandatory,
the entire process of holding examination
would stand dislocated. (Para 13)

The act and conduct of the petitioners as has
come on record shows that they were not at all
serious in submitting their online application
forms by depositing fee by the last date i.e.
10.01.2020
as
was
required
by
the
advertisement
dated
13.12.2019
and
the
ground, of internet services being disrupted,
taken for not submitting the same in time is not
at all convincing and reasonable, particularly
taking into account the fact that other several
similarly situated candidates have submitted
their application forms as per the advertisement
dated 13.12.2019 on or before 10.01.2020
throughout the State of U.P.

The examination is now scheduled to be held on
16.08.2020 and all the formalities of conducting
the same is complete and admit cards etc. have
also been issued to the candidates for appearing
in the said examination by the UPPSC and at
this last juncture, it would not be proper for this
Court to interfere in the present writ petition
granting any indulgence to the petitioner for
allowing them to deposit fee by online mode for
appearing in the examination for recruitment of
Block Education Officer in the State of U.P.
(Para 17, 18)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

## Text

9 All. Rampal Bhartiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
61

22. A similar view has been taken in
recent judgments of this Court in Vivek
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others1 and
Md. Arshad Khan Vs. State of U.P. and
others2 wherein it was held that matters
relating to medical evaluation of candidates
in a recruitment process involve expert
determination and it may not be desirable
to supplant the procedure prescribed
therefor as laid down under the relevant
recruitment rules and taking any other view
may have the effect of derailing the
recruitment process.

23. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal,
no interference is usually warranted unless
palpable infirmities or perversities are
noticed on a plain reading of the impugned
judgment and order.

24. In the facts and circumstances
of the instant case, on a plain reading of
the impugned judgment and order, we
do not
notice
any
such
palpable
infirmity or perversity. As such, we are
not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order dated
15.11.2019.

25. For reasons stated above, the
Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed and
stands, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A61
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Writ-A No. 1620 of 2020

Rampal Bhartiya & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rakesh Pande, Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam

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

A. Service Law - Recruitment/Public
Examination - Candidates must be clearly
aware of the fact that it is not open to a
candidate to decide as to when an
application should be submitted and the
compliance in time schedule, indicated as
mandatory, if not read to be mandatory,
the entire process of holding examination
would stand dislocated. (Para 13)

The act and conduct of the petitioners as has
come on record shows that they were not at all
serious in submitting their online application
forms by depositing fee by the last date i.e.
10.01.2020
as
was
required
by
the
advertisement
dated
13.12.2019
and
the
ground, of internet services being disrupted,
taken for not submitting the same in time is not
at all convincing and reasonable, particularly
taking into account the fact that other several
similarly situated candidates have submitted
their application forms as per the advertisement
dated 13.12.2019 on or before 10.01.2020
throughout the State of U.P.

The examination is now scheduled to be held on
16.08.2020 and all the formalities of conducting
the same is complete and admit cards etc. have
also been issued to the candidates for appearing
in the said examination by the UPPSC and at
this last juncture, it would not be proper for this
Court to interfere in the present writ petition
granting any indulgence to the petitioner for
allowing them to deposit fee by online mode for
appearing in the examination for recruitment of
Block Education Officer in the State of U.P.
(Para 17, 18)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -
1. Rajendra Patel Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2016 (1)
UPLEBEC 331 (Para 13)

2. Sachin Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
987 of 2020, decided on 18.01.2020 (Para 14)
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Dayaram Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
1764 of 2020, decided on 07.02.2020 (Para 14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to
this Court vide order dated 14.8.2020.

2. The Court has been convened
through video conferencing.

3. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar
Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri
Vikas
Chandra
Tripathi,
learned
Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and
Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2&3.

4. On 11.2.2020, a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has passed the following
order:-

"The petitioners, 23 in number,
have filed the instant petition with the
grievance that they could not deposit
examination fee by internet banking, as
required in terms of the advertisement
dated 13.12.2019 on account of disruption
of internet services in the State. The
recruitment is for the post of Block
Education Officers. The application was to
be submitted in three stages. In the first
stage, the candidate has to get himself
registered online followed by payment of
fee also by online mode and thereafter
actual submission of the application form
also by online mode. The last date for fee
submission
was
10.1.2020.
All
the
petitioners have successfully got themselves
registered
online.
The
case
of
the
petitioners is that because of disruption of
internet services in the State on account of
agitation going on in different districts
against the Citizenship Amendment Act,
they could not deposit the fees. They have,
therefore, filed the instant petition with the
prayer that their representation praying for
extension of time be directed to be
considered favourably.

Sri
Nisheeth
Yadav,
learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
no.2 and 3 points out that U.P. Public
Service Commission had received more
than five lakhs applications so far. He
points
out
that
complaint
regarding
disruption of internet services has been
received from 67 candidates only. He
places reliance on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
18.1.2020 in Writ-A No.987 of 2020
(Sachin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
another), wherein this Court in respect of
the same recruitment and somewhat similar
grievance dismissed the writ petition. The
fact of that case was that the candidate
therein had got himself registered online on
10.1.2020 which was the last date. He
thereafter tried to deposit the fee but in
which he remained unsuccessful. In the said
backdrop, the Court held that the candidate
himself was responsible for not being able
to deposit the fee. He was having sufficient
time from 13.12.2019 to 10.1.2020 to
deposit the fees. He ought not to have
waited for almost a month for initiating the
process for submitting his application. The
Court also observed that in the meantime,
in every likelihood, the Commission must
have proceeded with the selection process
and directing it to accept the application at
this stage would lead to reopening and rescheduling the entire selection process.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that the facts of the
instant case are clearly distinguishable. In
the present case, almost all the petitioners
had got themselves registered in December,
2019 itself. The petitioners were preparing
9 All. Rampal Bhartiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
63
for P.C.S. Entrance Examination which was
held on 15.12.2019. After they got free, they
tried to deposit the fee by online mode. It is
pointed out by referring to various
documents filed alongwith the writ petition
that repeated attempts to deposit the fee on
different dates, much before the last date,
had remained unsuccessful. It is further
pointed
out
that
the
respondent
Department,
in
respect
of
inviting
applications
from
the
teachers
for
exercising option for inter-district transfer,
extended the last date for submitting online
applications, having regard to similar
request that there had been regular
disruption of internet services in different
districts in the State on account of the same
agitation. The submission is that the
disruption of internet services in the State
in the month of December, 2019 and
January, 2020 is an acknowledged fact. In
such circumstances, even if the number of
candidates, who could not succeed in
uploading their forms, may be small but
their grievance could not be overlooked,
particularly when the failure of system was
not in their hand nor could be anticipated
in advance. Their grievance should be
addressed to in a sympathetic manner,
particularly when nothing much has
progressed in respect of the recruitment
which is underway. It is submitted that the
date of holding the written examination is
22.3.2020 and thus, sufficient time is
available. There would be no difficulty if
the time for deposit of fee is extended by a
few days.

Sri
Nisheeth
Yadav,
learned
counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 is
directed to file affidavit of Secretary, U.P.
Public Service Commission disclosing the
present stage of the recruitment process. It
shall clearly be disclosed in the affidavit as
to what further steps have been taken by
the Commission after the last date of
submission of application forms and
whether any step already taken is such
which is irreversible or in case a few days'
time is allowed, would it necessarily derail
the selection process. The affidavit shall be
filed by 20.2.2020.

Put up as fresh on 20.2.2020."

5. Pleadings between the parties have
been exchanged. The present matter has
been listed today in the additional cause list
on the urgency application filed on behalf
of
the
petitioners
stating
that
the
examination
for
the
post
of
Block
Education Officer is to be held on
16.8.2020 by Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission, hence the same was posted
for today.

6. The counsel for the petitioners has
vehemently argued that all the petitioners
have got themselves register for appearing
in the said examination in view of the
advertisement dated 13.12.2019 and they
could not deposit the requisite fee by online
mode for appearing in the said examination
by 10.1.2020 which was the last date for
deposit of fee on account of agitation
regarding C.A.A., the internet services have
been discontinued overall the State of U.P.
with effect from 17.12.2019 till 23.12.2019.
He argued that all the three stages being
interconnected and applicant could proceed
for final submission of application form
only after generation of print registration
slip and thereafter issuance of payment
acknowledgement receipt. Thereafter, only
the third stage of proceeding for final
submission of application form would be
available to a candidate. Normal services
could be restored only with effect from 4th
January, 2020 although availability of
network had become possible intermittently
between 23rd December, 2019 to 4th
January, 2020. The other petitioners had
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also
sought
to
make
payments
of
examination fee but on account of nonavailability of network whenever they tried
to
make
payments,
the
payment
acknowledgement receipts showing failed
payments could also not be generated. The
aforesaid occurrence in totally attributable
to defects in the availability of network
services for enabling online payments.

7. On the last date i.e. 10th January,
2020, all the petitioners had tried to make
one last attempt to submit their forms after
paying examination fee but on 10th also the
network services were badly affected
throughout the state of U.P. or at least in the
districts where the petitioners were located
and thus, all attempt of the petitioners to
deposit the examination fee online were
defeated because of deficiency in network
services specially as the fee could be
submitted only online.

8. In absence of the deposit of the
examination fee, the third stage of the
submission of final form could not be effected
and thus, the petitioners could not submit the
entire online form' and it was due to
unavoidable circumstances, could not deposit
the requisite online fee and fulfil the
subsequent stage for filling up the online
forms and this court may grant indulgence to
the petitioners who are 23 in number for
appearing in the said examination which is
now scheduled for 16.8.2020.

9. Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent nos.2 &
3 has submitted the queries made by this
Court vide its order dated 11.2.2020 are
stated in para nos.17 to 19 of the counter
affidavit which are reproduced as under:-

"17. That after the closure of the
online application forms, the process in
respect of holding the examination was
initiated and as of today is almost being
completed.

18. That the steps already taken
by UPPSC in respect of the present
selection are as:- (1) allocations of centers
in 18 districts (2) the printing of question
papers have been completed (3) the
printing of OMR
sheets
have
been
completed (4) Roll Numbers have been
allotted to the candidates, but the Admit
Card would be issued just 15 days prior to
the date of examination (5) All the
materials required for holding examination
in different allocated district is under
process of distribution, as due precautions
are already in motion as the same is highly
confidential.

19. That the stages, which have
been so completed, are irreversible and the
UPPSC is making all due efforts to adhere
to the calendar issued in respect of holding
of examination as scheduled and any
interference at this stage would put UPPSC
in a position, wherein the examination
could not be conducted on the scheduled
dates, which would effect lakhs of students
who have already applied against the
advertised post."

10. Further he has drawn attention of
the Court towards para 9 of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the said
respondents wherein three charts have been
given demonstrating the case of each of the
petitioners who fall in three categories on
the basis of relevant record. It was found
that the petitioners who are 23 in number
have been segregated in three categories
i.e. (I) the petitioners who did not even
attempt to apply for the second stage i.e.
petitioner no.1 Ram Pal Bhartiya, petitioner
no.3
Manoj
Kumar,
petitioner
no.4
Saraswati
Kanaujiya,
petitioner
no.6
Kamini
Jaiswal,
petitioner
no.8
9 All. Rampal Bhartiya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
65
Krishnawati Pal, petitioner no.10 Anjali,
petitioner no.14 Mayank Singh, petitioner
no.15 Pankaj Yadav, petitioner no.18
Kshamata
Dwivedi,
petitioner
no.19
Ambrish, petitioner no.20 Amit Gupta,
petitioner no.21 Rajeev Kumar, petitioner
no.22 Ashish Kumar, petitioner no.23
Avinash Kumar Shukla, (II) the petitioners
who made an attempt to deposit fee by
online mode on the last date i.e. 10.1.2020
are
petitioner
no.5
Maneesha
Devi,
petitioner no.9 Saurabh Singh, petitioner
no.11 Priti
Maurya,
petitioner
no.12
Shaurya Pandey, petitioner no.13 Mamta
Gautam,
petitioner
no.16
Vivekanand
Mishra, (III) the petitioner no.2 Sandhya
Devi, petitioner no.7 Manisha Devi and
petitioner no.17 Rajni Rani just made one
attempt in a month to deposit fee by online
mode on 26.12.2019, 29.12.2019 and
3.1.2020 respectively but their attempt
failed.

11. He further contended that the
Commission has received more than 5 lacs
applications and petitioners had enough
time to get the online fee deposit for which
approximately one month time was allotted
to them by the Commission and to say that
the internet services were disturbed all over
the State as has been argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner because of the
Citizenship Amendment Act protest etc. is
wholly unfounded as there were several
other candidates through out the State of
U.P. who have completed the third stage
and submitted the application form well
within the time for appearing in the said
examination. The three charts which have
been mentioned in para 9 of the counter
affidavit itself shows the casual conduct of
the petitioners. Out of 23 petitioners, 14
petitioners did not made second attempt
after their registration and 6 petitioners
only made an attempt to deposit the fee on
the last date of submission of online fee as
per the advertisement on 10.1.2020 and the
three petitioners made attempt to deposit
fee on the dates on which there was no
interruption in the internet in the State or in
any particular district.

12. He vehemently argued that the
advertisement in question was published on
13.12.2019 after 15.12.2019, the candidates
were having more than 28 days to complete
online application form in respect of the
advertisement.
More
than
5,28,313
candidates have applied and completed
third stage of form in the same period for
which the petitioners contend that there
was interruption of internet services and he
has also tried to demonstrate the number of
applications which were received date wise
from 13.12.2019 to 10.1.2020 i.e. last date
of submission of fee through documents
annexed as Annexure-24 to the counter
affidavit.

13. He relied upon a Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of
"Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. and
another" reported in 2016 (1) UPLBEC
331 which while considering the similar
controversy came to the conclusion that
"when the Commission holds Public
Examination
of
such
large
scale,
candidates must be clearly aware of the
fact that it is not open to a candidate to
decide as to when an application should
be submitted and the compliance in time
schedule,
which
are
indicated
as
mandatory, if it is not read to be
mandatory, the entire process of holding
examination would stand dislocated".

14. Thus it was argued that from the
charts which has been referred in para 9 of
the counter affidavit, it is apparent that out
of
23
petitioners/candidates
14
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners/candidates did not even attempt
to initiate the process of depositing
examination fee i.e. second stage and 6
petitioners/candidates attempted to second
stage on or after the cut of date i.e.
10.1.2020 hence the observation made by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A
No.987 of 2020 (Sachin Kumar Vs. State
of U.P. and others) decided on 18.1.2020
would be squarely applicable in respect of
the said 6 petitioners of whom detail is
being referred in Chart no.2 in the
preceding paragraphs. He further pointed
out that the observations of this Court in
respect of the same selection in the case of
"Dayaram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and
others" bearing Writ-A No.1764 of 2020
decided on 7.2.2020. The orders passed by
the co-ordinate Benches in both the cases,
where
not
challenged
by
the
said
candidates before this Court in Special
Appeal or any other higher forum till date.

15. He lastly argued that as the
examination is scheduled to be held on 16th
of August, 2020 and all the process of
examination has been completed hence at
this stage this Court may not grant any
indulgence to the petitioner in the present
writ petition as it would disturb the entire
examination
process
which
is
being
conducted by the UPPSC in the entire State
of U.P. on such a large scale and it would
cause great hardship to the candidates who
have submitted their application forms in
time for appearing in the said examination.

16. Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior
Advocate when confronted with the legal
proposition of law which has been cited
above by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned
counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4, he
could not dispute the same and only
reiterated that the petitioners case may be
sympathetically be considered by this Court
as the petitioners cannot be put at fault for
the prevailing circumstances in the State of
U.P. which were beyond their control when
they were required to submit their online
application
forms
for
the
aforesaid
recruitment process by 10.1.2020.

17. After having heard learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record, it transpires that the application
forms were to be submitted in three stages.
All the petitioners have got themselves
registered by online mode for appearing in
the examination for the recruitment of
Block Education Officer. 14 petitioners out
of 23 petitioners, after getting registration
for appearing in the said examination did
not made an attempt to fulfill the second
stage i.e. of depositing the fee by online
mode for appearing in the said examination
and 6 petitioners only made an attempt to
deposit the fee on last date of submission of
online fee as per the advertisement i.e.
10.1.2020 and they failed. Three petitioners
only made one attempt each on 26.12.2019,
29.12.2019 and 3.1.2020 respectively to
deposit the online fee but they remained
unsuccessful. The act and conduct of the
petitioners as has come on record shows
that they were not at all serious in
submitting up their online application
forms by depositing fee by the last date i.e.
10.1.2020
as
was
required
by
the
advertisement dated 13.12.2019 and the
ground taken for not submitting the same in
time by the counsel for the petitioner is not
at
all
convincing
and
reasonable,
particularly taking into account the fact that
similarly other situated several candidates
have submitted their application forms as
per the advertisement dated 13.12.2019 on
or before 10.1.2020 throughout the State of
U.P. when the internet services was said to
have been disturbed and their application
forms in three stages which they have
9 All. Rupesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
67
submitted online mode were accepted by
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission for their appearing in the
aforesaid examination.

18. The examination is now scheduled to
be held on 16.8.2020 and all the formalities of
conducting the same is complete and admit
cards etc. have also been issued to the
candidates
for
appearing
in
the
said
examination by the UPPSC and at this last
juncture, in my humble opinion, it would not be
proper for this Court to interfere in the present
writ petition granting any indulgence to the
petitioner for allowing them to deposit the fee
by online mode for appearing in the
examination
for
recruitment
of
Block
Education Officer in the State of U.P. which is
to be conducted on a large scale and large
number of candidates have submitted their
online form in three stages timely as per the
advertisement issued for the said recruitment
process would definitely cause great hardship
to the other candidates and dislocate the entire
process of holding examination. Moreover,
considering the proposition of law as has been
settled by this Full Bench decision in the case
of Rajendra Patel (Supra) and further the
order passed by the co-ordinate Benches in the
case of Sachin Kumar (Supra) and Daya
Ram Yadav (Supra) which were dismissed
on 18.1.2020 and 7.2.2020 respectively of the
candidates with respect to the identical
controversy which remained unchallenged by
the said candidates till date in the Special
Appeal before this Court or any other higher
forum, therefore, it is also not possible for this
Court to consider the case of the petitioners
sympathetically as has been prayed by the
Counsel for the petitioners.

19. In view of the foregoing
discussions, no interference is called for by
this Court in exercise of its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20. The writ petition lacks merit and
the same is accordingly dismissed.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A67
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ -A No. 5049 of 2020
connected with
Writ -A No. 5181 of 2020 and other cases

Rupesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Avneesh Tripathi, Sri Kranti Kiran
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A.
Service
Law-Recruitment
ProcessReview Medical Examination-Recruitment
Scheme: Clause 8, 15-Jurisdiction of
Allahabad High Court in the present
matter-Under the Scheme of recruitment, the
conduct
of
computer
based
examination,
preparation of merit list and force allocation of
selected candidates was handled by the Staff
Selection Commission (the regional office of
which is situated at Allahabad and it exercised
jurisdiction over centres located in State of
Bihar), while other functions were performed by
CAPFS/MHA but Clause 15 of the advertisement
which defines court's jurisdiction does not make
any distinction based
on the stages of
recruitment or allocation of different functions to
different bodies. The phrase "any dispute in
regard to this recruitment" is wide enough
to
take
within
its
purview
disputes
pertaining to all stages of recruitment
irrespective of the body entrusted with
conducting or holding any particular stage
of recruitment. (Para 8)