# Smt. Archana Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** WRIT A No. 16933 of 1999
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-16
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 16933 of 1999
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-archana-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45167
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri H.N. Sharma, Sri Anirudha
Sharma

A. Service - Appointment/Recruitment -
Procedural illegality/Favoritism - Petitioner
protesting
against
the
candidature
of
respondent no. 3, filed the present writ petition
before the result was declared. On 21.04.1999,
any appointment made was made subject to
the decision of the writ petition and later on
04.04.2001, the appointment of respondent
no. 3 on the post of Clerk by District Magistrate
was stayed. (Para 3, 9)

The Court observed that the application of
respondent-3 originally was submitted for
the post of Assistant Accountant and since
he did not possess requisite qualification, his
candidature was rejected but subsequently
manipulations were done in the application
form and same was accepted for post of
Junior Clerk. (Para 23 to 26)

After expiry of last date, no indulgence
can
be
granted
to
entertain
an
application or document of a candidate
who has come thereafter - In the present
case, respondent-3 has been allowed to
participate for recruitment on the post of
Junior Clerk by District Magistrate, passing
order on 11.12.1998, though that is much
after date
of expiry
of
last date
of
submission of application form. This was
clearly illegal and shows that appointment of
respondent-3 was not fair but in collusion
with the then District Magistrate. It is
vitiated in law on account of favoritism and
procedural illegality committed by concerned
authority. (Para 27, 28)

Since appointment of respondent-3 was
already made subject to result of writ petition
and subsequently it was also stayed, the mere
fact
that
after
filing
of
writ
petition,
respondent-3 was appointed would make no
difference. Appointment of respondent no. 3
is declared illegal and set aside. (Para 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent
followed:
3-5 All. Smt. Archana Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1211

## Text

1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner had knowledge of the pendency
of the criminal case which he deliberately
concealed. The offence under which the
petitioner is being proceeded against cannot
be said to be of petty nature so as to extend
the benefit of guidelines laid down in this
regard.The Appointing Authority having
considered the entire aspect and finding the
petitioner not fit for job in view of his
dishonest and dubious conduct, hardly any
scope is left for this Court to come to the
rescue of the petitioner.

10. Before parting, the Court is
constrained to note that large number of
such cases are coming before the Court
where appointments are being cancelled on
ground
of
furnishing
of
incorrect
information by the candidates. The growing
tendency in young people to procure
appointment even at the cost of furnishing
wrong information is really a disturbing
trend. The Court is sanguine that deliberate
misstatement and concealment would be
eschewed. Even Courts would then only be
able to come to their rescue.

11. The petition lacks merit and
dismissed with a cost of Rs.25000/-.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1210
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

WRIT A No. 16933 of 1999

Smt. Archana Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri U.N. Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri H.N. Sharma, Sri Anirudha
Sharma

A. Service - Appointment/Recruitment -
Procedural illegality/Favoritism - Petitioner
protesting
against
the
candidature
of
respondent no. 3, filed the present writ petition
before the result was declared. On 21.04.1999,
any appointment made was made subject to
the decision of the writ petition and later on
04.04.2001, the appointment of respondent
no. 3 on the post of Clerk by District Magistrate
was stayed. (Para 3, 9)

The Court observed that the application of
respondent-3 originally was submitted for
the post of Assistant Accountant and since
he did not possess requisite qualification, his
candidature was rejected but subsequently
manipulations were done in the application
form and same was accepted for post of
Junior Clerk. (Para 23 to 26)

After expiry of last date, no indulgence
can
be
granted
to
entertain
an
application or document of a candidate
who has come thereafter - In the present
case, respondent-3 has been allowed to
participate for recruitment on the post of
Junior Clerk by District Magistrate, passing
order on 11.12.1998, though that is much
after date
of expiry
of
last date
of
submission of application form. This was
clearly illegal and shows that appointment of
respondent-3 was not fair but in collusion
with the then District Magistrate. It is
vitiated in law on account of favoritism and
procedural illegality committed by concerned
authority. (Para 27, 28)

Since appointment of respondent-3 was
already made subject to result of writ petition
and subsequently it was also stayed, the mere
fact
that
after
filing
of
writ
petition,
respondent-3 was appointed would make no
difference. Appointment of respondent no. 3
is declared illegal and set aside. (Para 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent
followed:
3-5 All. Smt. Archana Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1211
1. Rajendra Patel Vs. St. of U.P. & anr., (2016) 1
UPLBEC 331 (Para 27)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. This Writ Petition under Article
226 of Constitution has been filed by Smt.
Archana Srivastava, praying for a writ of
mandamus directing respondents to quash
candidature of candidates who applied
beyond time for the post of Junior Clerk,
award her weightage marks in respect to
sports
certificate
and
additional
qualification possessed by petitioner in
accordance
with
Rules
and
proceed
accordingly.

2. The case set up by petitioner is that an
advertisement was published on 10.08.1998
inviting applications for recruitment to the posts
of Junior Clerk in the office of Niyantrak
Pradhikari Viniyamit Kshetra, Konch, District
Jalaun. Pursuant thereto, petitioner applied
along with seven other candidates. Respondent3 Rajiv Pandey, a resident of State of Bihar had
applied for the post of 'Assistant Accountant' in
the Office of Treasury Officer, Orai, Jalaun. His
candidature for the said post was rejected but
thereafter respondent-2 allowed respondent-3 to
be considered for the post of Junior Clerk
though he had obtained sports certificate in
State of Bihar which was not recognized for
weightage in the State of U.P. but that was also
considered and he was allowed to appear in the
selection test. When petitioner came to know
about this fact, made representation dated
05.03.1999 and 30.03.1999, protesting against
candidature of respondent-3 but ignoring the
same, respondent-2 allowed respondent-3 to
participate in selection and ignored petitioner's
application.

3. Since result was not declared, therefore,
writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to
respondents-1 and 2 to ignore candidature of
respondent-3 for the post of Junior Clerk as he
had not applied in time for the said post and
thereafter
make
selection
by
awarding
weightage of sports certificate to petitioner.

4. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by
respondents-1 and 2 sworn by Smt. Urmila
Devi, Deputy Collector, Konch, District Jalaun.
It is stated therein that respondent-3 submitted
form for Junior Clerk but due to clerical
mistake, since the date of advertisement of
vacancies for Junior Clerk and Assistant
Accountant
were
same,
therefore,
his
application form was forwarded to District
Treasury. Thereafter by order of District
Magistrate, application of two candidates, Rajiv
Nayan and Rajiv Kumar Pandey were included
in the list of candidates who had applied for the
post of Junior Clerk. This information was also
given to Karmik Department vide letter dated
11.12.1998. Mere fact that respondent-3 was
resident of Bihar, was irrelevant since there was
no condition of domiciliation for applying for
the post of Junior Clerk. With regard to
weightage to sports certificate also, it is said that
there was no distinction, whether a person has
participated in the prescribed sports level in
State of Bihar or State of U.P. Respondent-3
submitted certificate upto School level for
which he was awarded two marks while
petitioner did not submit any sports proficiency
certificate, therefore, she was not awarded any
weightage of participation in sports.

5. Further, for the post of Junior
Clerk, in type test of 20 maximum marks,
petitioner could secure 13.20 marks while
respondent-3
secured
15.20
marks.
Selection for the post of Junior Clerk was
made in accordance with Rules and only
mistake happened is that the application
form of Rajiv Nayan and Rajiv Kumar
Pandey were forwarded to District Treasury
but thereafter they were considered for the
post of Junior Clerk under the orders of
1212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Magistrate. The marks obtained by
petitioner and respondent-3 in the written
test, interview and under various heads are
given in para-10 of counter affidavit as
under:

Sl.No. Subject of
Test
Prescribed
Maximum
marks
Marks obtained
Petitioner Re
spo
nde
nt3
1
Written
Test
40
20.00.
12.
90.
2
50 per
cent of the
marks
obtained
in written
test
20
10.00.
09.
60.
3
Minimum
qualificati
on
(Intermedi
ate)
30
18.18
15.
49
4
Marks of
retrenched
employee
15
-
-
5
Sports
marks
5
00.
02.
00.
6
Typing
Test
20
13.20.
15.
20.
7
Interview
10
06.00.
05.
80.

Total
Marks
100
47.38
48.
09

6. Separate Counter Affidavit has
been filed by respondent-3 stating that he
has been selected for the post of Junior
Clerk
and
appointment
letter
dated
20.04.1999 was issued appointing him on
the post of Junior Clerk. He has submitted
joining report on 20.04.1999 and since then
working on the post of Junior Clerk in the
Office of Niyantrak Pradhikari Viniyamit
Kshetra, Konch, District Jalaun. He has
further stated that petitioner did not submit
any certificate showing her participation in
sports activity, therefore, she was not
awarded any marks/weightage under the
said 'Head'. With regard to his own
application, in para-7 of Counter Affidavit,
respondent-3 has stated that the Office
committed a mistake and treated his
application as it if was for the post of
Assistant Accountant and hence forwarded
the same to District Treasury though it
ought to have been sent to concerned
authorities dealing with recruitment of
Junior Clerk. Similar error was committed
in respect of one Rajiv Nayan hence both
these applications, under the orders of
District Magistrate, subsequently were sent
to appropriate authority and they were
allowed to participate in recruitment to the
post of Junior Clerk.

7. Petitioner has filed Rejoinder
Affidavit reiterating that respondent-3
actually had applied for the post of
'Assistant Accountant' and since he did
not possess requisite qualification, his
candidature was rejected. Subsequently
District Magistrate illegally allowed
interpolation in the application form
and illegally accepted the same for the
post of Junior Clerk. In para-6 of
Rejoinder Affidavit it has specifically
been said that respondent-3 never
applied for the post of Junior Clerk in
the Office of Niyantrak Pradhikari
Viniyamit
Kshetra,
Konch,
District
Jalaun, as such he was not entitled to be
considered for the post of Junior Clerk.
His entitlement for weightage of sports
participation is also disputed.

8. Two Supplementary Counter
Affidavits have also been filed on behalf of
respondent-2.
3-5 All. Smt. Archana Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1213

9. In the Supplementary Counter
Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-2
sworn
on
02.09.2013
by
Sri
L.
Venketshwar
Loo,
the
then
District
Magistrate,
Jalaun
and
working
as
Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at the
time of swearing the affidavit, it is said that
a letter of appointment was issued to
respondent-3 by Deepak Kumar, the then
District Magistrate/ Niyantrak Pradhikari
Viniyamit Kshetra, Konch, District Jalaun
on 20.04.1999. On 21.04.1999 this Court
passed following interim order:

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are
directed to file counter affidavit within two
months. The petitioner shall take steps to
serve respondent no. 3 by registered post
within one week.
List in 4th week of July 1999.

Any appointment made shall be
subject to the decision of the writ
petition." (emphasis added)

10. Subsequently, on 04.04.2001 this
Court passed another interim order as
under:

"The
matter
was
fixed
peremptorily today. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has informed Shri H.N.
Sharma in writing that this matter will be
taken up today. The letter is taken on
record.

Counter
affidavit
filed
by
respondent no. 3 is not on record. Counter
affidavit has been filed by standing counsel
in the office on 16-9-99. Office shall trace
out the counter affidavit and place it on
record.

Standing counsel has produced a
copy of counter affidavit wherein it has
been stated that respondent no. 3 has been
appointed by District Magistrate Jalaun
during the pendency of the writ petition but
copy of a appointment letter has not been
filed.

Until further orders of this court,
the appointment of respondent no. 3 on
the post of Clerk by District Magistrate
Jalaun shall remain stayed." (emphasis
added)

11.

Thereafter,
petitioner
filed
Contempt Application No 2793 of 2001 but
the same was rejected, hence respondent-3
has been continuously working on the post
of Junior Clerk and getting the salary.

12. Another Supplementary Affidavit
has been filed on behalf of respondent-2
sworn by Sri Sanjay Kumar, NaibTehsildar, Tehsil Konch, District Jalaun
appending therewith a copy of sports
certificate
dated
24.07.1987
showing
participation of respondent-3 in Football
and Athletics at School Level, i.e. B.B.
High School, Begusarai, Bihar. Copy of
advertisement dated 09.08.1998 for the post
of Junior Clerk has also been filed as
Annexure SCA-2 wherein last date of
submission
of
application
form
was
31.08.1998. The format of application
shows that for School level sports also
weightage was provided. A copy of
Government Order dated 29.08.1998 has
also been filed as Annexure SCA-3
showing procedure for direct recruitment
on Group-C posts which clarifies that
recruitment shall be made by holding a
written test of 100 marks which will
comprise of examination in general Hindi,
General Knowledge and General Studies
which will be of value of 40 per cent
marks. 30 per cent marks are provided for
marks obtained in minimum educational
qualification, 15 per cent marks for
retrenched employees, five marks for
International level sportsman, 4 marks for
1214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
National level, 3 marks for State level and
2 marks for University/College or Schools
level sportsman. 20 per cent marks for
typing and stenography wherever it is
necessary and thereafter interview. A copy
of application form of petitioner has also
been placed on record as SCA-4 to show
that she did not append any certificate of
sports
participation
along
with
her
application form.

13. Respondent-3 in his affidavit
sworn on 02.09.2013 has stated specifically
that he as well as petitioner both applied for
appointment to the post of Junior Clerk
pursuant to advertisement, copy whereof
has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ
petition, and he was entitled to get
weightage for sports quota certificate. It is
also said that he has been issued letter of
appointment
on
20.04.1999
and
his
appointment has never been challenged by
petitioner, therefore, writ petition is liable
to be dismissed since he has already been
appointed and the same has not been
challenged.

14. This Court took it seriously as to
why respondent-3 was allowed to continue
since his appointment itself was stayed by
order dated 04.04.2001 and consequently
on 06.08.2013, it passed following order:

"Affidavit filed by the learned
counsel for the respondent is taken on
record.

The petitioner has challenged the
selection of respondent no.3 on the ground
that selection was unfair and illegal.

At the time of moving of this writ
petition this Court passed the following
order on 21.4.99 :

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner. The respondents 1 and 2 are
directed to file counter affidavit within two
months. The petitioner shall take steps to
serve respondent no. 3 by registered post,
within one week.

List in 4th week of July, 1999.

Any appointment made shall be
subject to the decision of the writ petition."

It
appears
that
District
Magistrate appointed respondent no. 3 on
20.4.1999. The matter was again heard on
4.4.2001. On the said date the learned
counsel for the respondent no.3 did not
appear before the Court inspite of written
notice given by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel who
represent the District Magistrate informed
the Court that respondent no.3 has already
been appointed by the District Magistrate
during the pendency of the writ petition.

Having taken note of the said fact
the Court has stayed the appointment of the
respondent no.3. The order passed by this
Court on 4.4.2001 reads as under :-

"The
matter
was
fixed
peremptorily today. Learned counsel for
the
petitioner
has
informed
Shri
H.N.Sharma in writing that this matter will
be taken up today, the letter is taken on
record.

Counter
affidavit
filed
by
respondent no.3 and standing counsel is
not on record. Counter affidavit has been
filed by standing counsel in the office on
16.9.99. Office shall trace out the counter
affidavit and place it on record.

Standing counsel has produced a
copy of counter affidavit wherein it has
been stated that respondent no.3 has been
appointed by District Magistrate, Jalaun
during the pendency of the writ petition but
copy of appointment letter has not been
filed.

Until further orders of this court,
the appointment of respondent no.3 on the
post of clerk by District Magistrate, Jalaun
shall remain stayed."
3-5 All. Smt. Archana Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1215

From the record it appears that
petitioner aggrieved by the contemptuous
and
illegal
action
of
the
District
Magistrate preferred Contempt Petition
No. 2793 of 2001 before this Court. It
appears that only part of the order dated
4.4.2001 was placed before the Contempt
court which has been quoted by the
Contempt Court in its order. It is admitted
case of the respondent no.3 that inspite of
positive direction of this Court on 4.4.2001
he is continuing and receiving salary.

From the record it is also evident
that after filing counter affidavit the
respondent no.3 and learned Standing
Counsel has not taken any steps to get the
interim order vacated.

Let notice be issued to the then
District Magistrate to explain his conduct.
The respondent no.3 is represented by Sri
Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel. Four
weeks time is granted to the District
Magistrate and the respondent no.3 for
filing reply to the show cause as to why
respondent no.3 is continuing even after
order of this Court dated 4.4.2001.
(emphasis added)

The District Magistrate shall
redirect this order to the then District
Magistrate, wherever he is currently
posted.

List the matter after four weeks."

15. When the matter was further
heard, a serious dispute arose as to, whether
respondent-3 had applied for the post of
'Assistant Accountant' or 'Junior Clerk' and
application
was
submitted
within
prescribed time or not. Consequently, this
Court required respondent-2 to produce
original record of recruitment/selection
before Court vide order dated 21.10.2019.
The same has been produced for my
perusal.

16. Original Application form of
respondent-3 shows that in the Column of
post,
initially
'Kanishtha
Lipik'
is
mentioned but the same is scored out.
Thereafter, post of 'Sahayak Lekhakar' is
mentioned. The same is also scored out.
Then again, post 'Kanishtha Lipik' is
mentioned. Application is signed on
06.09.1998
by
respondent-3
though
demand draft mentioned in Application is
No. 359629 dated 08.09.1998 which shows
that
demand
draft
was
prepared
subsequently and appended to application
form which was signed on 06.09.1998. On
the photograph, there is signature of
respondent-3 and date 07.09.1998 is
mentioned
with
some
illegible
endorsement. On the left side of application
form, there is endorsement of receipt dated
11.09.1998 and thereafter there is an
endorsement of necessary action made and
signed
by
Senior
Treasury
Officer.
Thereafter somebody has signed on behalf
of District Magistrate on 11.09.1998. On
the right side of application form, there is
an endorsement of District Magistrate,
Jalaun at Orai which is undated and there is
a seal of District Magistrate with following
endorsement:

^^vkosfnr in ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ds
vUrxZr u gksus ds dkj.k vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k
tkrk gSA^^

"The application form is rejected
due to not being under the prescribed
qualification for the post applied."

(English Translation by Court)

(emphasis added)

17 . Then in the middle of Application
Form, there is another endorsement with
the seal of District Magistrate stating as
under:

"Allowed for regulated area"
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. At the bottom of Application
Form, somebody has made endorsement
mentioning the date of 17.09.1998 as
under:

^^egksn;] bldk lEcU/k mjbZ dks"kkxkj esa
fo:fir inksa ls ugha gSA d`i;k okilh Lohdkj djsaA^^

"Sir, It is not related to the post
advertised in Treasury Office, Orai. Please
acknowledge the return."

(English
Translation by Court)

(emphasis added)

19. Not only this, I find that there are
several applications in which interestingly
manipulations have been made. There is an
Application
From
of
Vijay
Shankar
Mahajan where in the Column of Post,
there is a separate Paper pasted on which
post mentioned is 'Kanishtha Lipik' but that
paper pasting is slightly open and I find
mention of Post of 'Sahayak Lekhakar' on
the Application Form, originally. This has
been tried to be concealed by pasting a
paper and mentioning the post of Junior
Clerk. Who has done and why has done I
find nothing is clear.

20. A similar application is that of
A.U. Siddiqui. Therein also the post
mentioned in the Application Form is
different but it is in the Treasury
Department, as paper pasting is slightly
torn on the side but paper pasted on it
mentions the post as 'Junior Clerk' and this
manipulation
has
also
been
done
subsequently but without any initials etc.

21. In the case of Rajiv Nayan also
I find that his application is signed on
30.08.1998. His candidature was also
rejected
by
District
Magistrate
but
subsequently
District
Magistrate
has
allowed
it
for
regulated
area.
The
application form appears to have been
received in the Treasury Department on
16.09.1998. Original Record also contains
letter of one Rajiv Nayan dated 11.12.1998
addressed to the District Magistrate stating
that he received letter dated 28.11.1998 on
07.12.1998 informing that his candidature
has been rejected on the ground of lack of
qualification though he has never applied
for the post of Assistant Accountant but
submitted application for the post of Junior
Clerk and, therefore, he should be allowed
to participate in recruitment of Junior
Clerk.
Thereon,
Sri
Vinod
Kumar
Srivastava, Treasury Officer submitted a
report
on
11.12.1998
stating
that
application form mentioned the post 'Junior
Clerk' but Department was not mentioned
and
there
was
some
mistake
and
considering this aspect, District Magistrate
passed
order
permitting
him
to
be
considered for the post of Junior Clerk.
Communicating the said information, Sri
Amit Mohand Prasad, the then District
Magistrate, Jalaun sent a letter to Special
Secretary, U.P. Government on 11.12.1998.

22. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava,
Advocate, for petitioner; learned Standing
Counsel appearing for State-respondents-1
and
2
and
Sri
Prabhakar
Awasthi,
Advocate, holding brief of H.N. Sharma,
Advocate, appearing for respondent-3.

23. As discussed above, original
record shows that the candidates who have
submitted applications for the posts in
Treasury, have been allowed subsequently
to change the post after expiry of last date
for
submission
of
application
form.
Respondent-3's
application
clearly
mentioned initially post of 'Junior Clerk'/
'Assistant Accountant' and both were
scored out. Thereafter the post of Junior
3-5 All. Smt. Archana Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1217
Clerk is mentioned. The application was
submitted for Assistant Accountant. It was
rejected
by
District
Magistrate
in
September' 1998 but subsequently District
Magistrate allowed him to appear in
selection for the post of Junior Clerk. The
alteration on the application form in respect
of the post is not initialed by any one. The
order sheet containing notes of Treasury
Officer and concerned Clerks are dated
December,
1998.
It
shows
that
subsequently
when
respondent-3
was
allowed to appear for the post of 'Junior
Clerk', Order sheet was got prepared
accordingly and then District Magistrate,
Deepak Kumar, allowed respondent-3 to
appear for the post of Junior Clerk though
his application was already rejected in
September, 1998. This is a serious matter
and shows an extraordinary indulgence on
the part of the then District Magistrate in
permitting respondent-3 to participate for
the post of Junior Clerk. The extraordinary
favour
to
respondent-3
by
District
Magistrate is writ large from the fact that
even when the order of appointment was
stayed by this Court on 04.04.2001, still he
was allowed to continue and salary was
paid.

24. In the matter of recruitment and
appointment, corruption and manipulation by
concerned officials with the record of
candidates, for the reasons other than bona fide,
has become a matter of routine. This case is
glaring example of such an illegality. Once an
application has been submitted by a candidate,
which is not properly filled in or properly
submitted or various columns are not properly
filled in, in normal course it ought to be
rejected. It appears, however, that concerned
authorities whenever are interested they find out
the ways and means to favour the candidates in
whom they are interested. This is what has been
done in the case in hand also. Various scoring
out on the original application form of
respondent-3 and the factum that District
Magistrate had rejected the said application,
how could review its decision and allowed
respondent-3 to participate, could not be
explained by learned Standing Counsel. He
tried to rely on the defence taken that the
application was wrongly forwarded to Treasury
Officer though respondent-3 had submitted
application for the post of 'Junior Clerk' yet
failed to explain various erases made on the
application form and also the endorsement of
District Magistrate and that too without any
date. It appears that initially respondent-3
submitted application mentioning both the
posts, i.e., 'Junior Clerk and Assistant
Accountant', and that is why stroke has been
added between the words "Junior Clerk" and
"Assistant Accountant" but later on "Junior
Clerk" was scored out and that action has been
done with a different pen and in a different
manner. Later when he was not found eligible
for the post of 'Assistant Accountant', as he did
not fulfill requisite qualification for the said
post, his application was rejected by District
Magistrate. Then in December, 1998 when he
allowed respodnent-3 to appear in the
recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk with a
different pen, he was allowed to score out the
words "Assistant Accountant" and in a different
handwriting and pen, "Kanishtha Lipik" again
has been mentioned in the Application form. At
the end of application form, there is an
endorsement by someone as subordinate
officer, as under:

^^egksn;] bldk lEcU/k mjbZ dks"kkxkj esa
fo:fir inksa ls ugha gSA d`i;k okilh Lohdkj djsaA
g0 17@9@98^^

"Sir, It is not related to the post
advertised in Treasury Office, Orai. Please
acknowledge the return. Sig. 17/9/98"

(English Translation by Court)
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. Who has made this endorsement
and what for, particularly when application
was already rejected by District Magistrate
and more so, after rejection of application
form, letter was also sent in November,
1998
to
the
concerned
candidates
communicating
rejection,
I
find
no
explanation. Further the documents in
original file have been placed in a
suspicious
manner,
inasmuch
no
application of respondent-3 permitting him
to appear for the post of Junior Clerk is on
record. There is an application of Rajiv
Nayan and original file submitted to this
Court mentions the said application as
Paper Sl.No.-1. The said application is
undated. There are three endorsement on
the said letter and all are dated 11.12.1998.
Then the order sheet starts and on the one
side, it is marked as Sl.No.-2 while there is
Sl.No.-4 on the right hand side but that
serial number is scored out. Then comes,
another paper which is marked as Sl.No.-5.
On the back side of it there is Sl.No. 3 and
on the right side, there is Sl.No.-6 which is
scored out. It shows that order-sheet is also
arranged in the manner which suits to the
authorities concerned. Then there is Noting
dated 11.12.1998 of Additional District
Magistrate
(Finance
and
Revenue)
addressed to District Magistrate and it is a
separate order sheet with Sl.No. 4. Then
again comes the order sheet Sl.No. 5
whereunder Sl.No. 1 is also mentioned
which is scored out and it contains a noting
of Prescribed Authority dated 20.04.1999
and then signature of Deepak Kumar,
District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and that
too dated 20.04.1999. Then again a
photocopy of order sheet which is on
record and marked as Sl.No.-6 and Sl.No.-4
is also mentioned which is scored out. Then
there is another separate order sheet which
is shown as Sl.No.-5 and on the back side
Sl.No.-7 is mentioned and on the right side
also Sl.No. 6 is also mentioned which is
scored out and it contains endorsement of
A.D.M.
dated
11.12.1998.
Various
documents in the file, which are tagged at
top are letters dated 11.12.1998 sent by
District Magistrate to State Government
and it contains Paper Sl. No.-56 whereafter
there is another Paper Sl. No.-56 which is
original copy of appointment letter sent to
respondent-3. The Application Form placed
on record contains three page numbers two
of them are scored out. It also shows that
documents in the original file have not been
maintained in regular course of business.

26. Be that as it may, the fact remains
that application of respondent-3 originally
was submitted for the post of Assistant
Accountant and it also mentioned on the
top endorsement AA196 which appears to
be short form of Assistant Accountant but
subsequently all the manipulations have
been done in which respondent-2 obviously
must have been instrumentality otherwise
nothing could have been permitted.

27. A Full Bench of this Court in
Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. and
another (2016) 1 UPLBEC 331 has
clearly held that after expiry of last date, no
indulgence can be granted to entertain an
application or document of a candidate who
has come thereafter.

28. In the present case, respondent-3
has been allowed to participate for
recruitment on the post of Junior Clerk by
District
Magistrate
passing
order
on
11.12.1998 though that is much after date
of expiry of last date of submission of
application form. This was clearly illegal
and shows that appointment of respondent3 was not fair but in collusion with the then
District Magistrate. It is vitiated in law on
account of favoritism and procedural
3-5 All. Navanit Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1219
illegality
committed
by
concerned
authority.
Since
appointment
of
respondent-3 was already made subject to
result of writ petition and subsequently it
was also stayed, the mere fact that after
filing of writ petition, respondent-3 was
appointed would make no difference.

29. In the result, writ petition is
allowed. Appointment of respondent-3 is
declared illegal and hereby set aside.

30. The facts disclosed above show
that despite interim order passed by this
Court,
respondent-3
was
allowed
to
continue and paid salary, therefore, for the
period subsequent to order 04.04.2001, the
amount of salary which has been paid to
respondent-3 is clearly unauthorized and
illegal. However, since he has worked, I do
not find it appropriate to direct recovery of
salary from respondent-3 but this illegality
and
contemptuous
act
has
been
perpetuated/be allowed by the then District
Magistrate, therefore, in my view entire
amount which has been paid towards salary
to respondent-3, on and after the stay order
passed by this Court on 04.04.2001, must
be recovered from concerned Officials who
held Office of District Magistrate from that
date till now and allowed this illegality. I
order accordingly. The respondent-1 shall
give opportunity to concerned District
Magistrate(s) who held the Office during
this period and make recovery of the
amount which has been paid as salary to
respondent-3
from
such
District
Magistrate(s) who held Office during this
period and allowed salary to be paid to
respondent-3 despite stay order passed by
this Court on 04.04.2001.

31. Considering the facts and
circumstances and also the fact that original
application form of petitioner nowhere
shows that he submitted certificate of
sports and even otherwise almost 20 years
have passed, I find it appropriate that the
vacancy on the post of 'Junior Clerk', after
setting
aside
the
appointment
of
respondent-3, will be filled in by initiating
process of recruitment, afresh.

32. However, petitioner shall be
entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs. 1 lac
against respondents-1 and 2.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1219
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No. 24576 of 2019

Navanit Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jagdambika Prasad Tripathi, Indra Jeet
Yadav, Vishwanath Prasad Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Criminal
Law-Indian
Penal
CodeSection
147,323,504
&
506-ServiceAppointment- Petitioner was declared unfit
for the post of Junior Assistant after selection.
Reason mentioned was the pendency of a
criminal case against the petitioner u/s 147,
323, 504 and 506 IPC. The Court held that, as
the petitioner was not aware about the
pendency of criminal case at the time of
submitting his declaration, he could not have
disclosed the same. Also, his offence was not so
serious to refuse appointment. (Para 9, 10)
Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed: