# Smt. Arti Verma v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 145
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-02-05
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhqananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Dilip Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-arti-verma-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42956
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service lawcancellation
of
candidature-appellant
applied on lines application-claiming benefit
of dependant of fighter of freedomsubsequent application to change the
application form -held-once declaration
given-that any information found wrongcandidature shall be cancelled-held-learned
Single Judge rightly declined to interfere.
Held: Para-4
No fault can, therefore, be found in
rejecting the application for correction
when the candidate himself has failed to
make a proper disclosure or where, as in
the present case, the
application is
submitted
under
a
wrong
category.
Interference of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly
not warranted in such matters as it creates
grave uncertainty since the selection
process cannot be finally completed.
Moreover,
in
the
present
case,
the
appointment was of a contractual nature
for a period of eleven months. Hence,
considering
the
matter
from
any
perspective, the learned Single Judge was
not in error in dismissing the petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Case Law discussed:
Spl. Appeal 834 of 2013; Spl. Appeal 75 of

## Text

1 All] Smt.Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
145
independent exercise of power is not
required to be performed by him. These
observations of the learned Single Judge
are really not necessary for a decision of
the writ petition and consequently we
consider it appropriate and proper to set
aside the directions contained to that
effect in paragraph 20 of the judgment
and order. We also clarify that the costs in
the present case shall be borne by the
State Government.

12.

The
Special
Appeal
is,
accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid
terms and the impugned judgment stands
modified to that extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHQANANJAYA
YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014

Smt. Arti Verma... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shambhu Nath, Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nisheeth Yadav.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service lawcancellation
of
candidature-appellant
applied on lines application-claiming benefit
of dependant of fighter of freedomsubsequent application to change the
application form -held-once declaration
given-that any information found wrongcandidature shall be cancelled-held-learned
Single Judge rightly declined to interfere.
Held: Para-4
No fault can, therefore, be found in
rejecting the application for correction
when the candidate himself has failed to
make a proper disclosure or where, as in
the present case, the
application is
submitted
under
a
wrong
category.
Interference of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly
not warranted in such matters as it creates
grave uncertainty since the selection
process cannot be finally completed.
Moreover,
in
the
present
case,
the
appointment was of a contractual nature
for a period of eleven months. Hence,
considering
the
matter
from
any
perspective, the learned Single Judge was
not in error in dismissing the petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Case Law discussed:
Spl. Appeal 834 of 2013; Spl. Appeal 75 of
2013.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)

1. The appellant made an on-line
application for engagement as Shiksha
Anudeshak (Arts) for 2012-13 on a
contract basis. In the application, the
appellant claimed to have belonged to the
Freedom Fighters' category, which was
admittedly not the category to which the
appellant could have claimed. The name
of the appellant was shown in the select
list of candidates belonging to the
Freedom
Fighters'
Category.
The
Secretary
to
the
State
Government
rejected the representation filed by the
appellant for correcting the error in the on
line application. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the petition filed by the
appellant under Article 226 of the
Constitution for setting aside the order
passed by the Secretary noting that under
the declaration given by the appellant
while filling up the application, it was
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated that the candidature could be
rejected if any discrepancy was found.
The learned Single Judge has also relied
upon a judgment of the Division Bench
rendered in Ram Manohar Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. & three Ors., (Special
Appeal-834 of 2013).

2. In the judgment of the Division
Bench in Ram Manohar Yadav (supra) it
was observed that where an applicant has
shown his incompetence or negligence in
not not even correctly filling up a simple
on line application form for employment,
interference of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution was not
warranted.

3.

However,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant relied
upon a judgment of a Division Bench in
Puspraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(Special Appeal-75 of 2013). That is a
case where the appellant had wrongly
described himself as a female candidate.
On these facts, the Division Bench
accepted the contention that human error
had caused an incorrect on line entry,
since there was no reason for the
appellant to make such a declaration and
that he did not stand to gain anything by
making such an incorrect entry.

4. In the present case, the appellant
claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters
category. The contention that this was as a
result of an error committed by the
Computer Operator cannot simply be
accepted for the reason that the appellant
would necessarily be responsible for any
statement which he made on line. If the
Courts were to accept such a plea of the
appellant, that would result in a situation
where the appellant would get the benefit
of a wrong category if the wrong claim
went unnoticed and if noticed, the
appellant could always turn around and
claim that this was as a result of human
error. Each candidate necessarily must
bear the consequences of his failure to fill
up the application form correctly. No fault
can, therefore, be found in rejecting the
application for correction when the
candidate himself has failed to make a
proper disclosure or where, as in the
present case, the application is submitted
under a wrong category. Interference of
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is clearly not warranted in
such
matters
as
it
creates
grave
uncertainty since the selection process
cannot be finally completed. Moreover, in
the present case, the appointment was of a
contractual nature for a period of eleven
months. Hence, considering the matter
from any perspective, the learned Single
Judge was not in error in dismissing the
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.

5.

The
Special
Appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA
YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal (D) No. 130 of 2014
alongwith Special Appeal No. 131 of 2014

Harsh Kumar & Anr.... Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. and Ors.....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Sri Satyendra
Chandra
Tripathi