# State of U.P. & Ors v. Rohit Bhatt & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 429
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-29
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 253 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C. J. Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-rohit-bhatt-ors-49149
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Primary Teacher -
Selection - Recruitment Examination -
Possession of minimum qualification -
Respondent-candidate duly passed the
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
BTC course - Mistake was at the behest of
appellant in preparation of result of BTC
course - Effect - Held, on account of
mistake, the respondent No. 1-petitioner
was declared as failed by the Appellants.
The
mistake
is
attributable
to
the
Appellants and for such a mistake the
respondent No. 1-petitioner cannot be
made to suffer - The delay in correction of
the mark sheet of the respondent No. 1petitioner
is
at
the
behest
of
the
Appellants - The respondent No. 1petitioner's
candidature
for
Primary
Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019
cannot be faulted. (Para 16 and 17)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Rohit Bhatt & Ors.
429
before the Tribunal/High Court seeking a
direction to the employer to consider and
dispose
of
his
representation.
The
Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or
dispose
of
such
applications/petitions
(many a time even without notice to the
other side), without examining the matter
on merits, with a direction to consider and
dispose of the representation.

9. The courts/tribunals proceed
on the assumption, that every citizen
deserves a reply to his representation.
Secondly they assume that a mere direction
to
consider
and
dispose
of
the
representation
does
not
involve
any
`decision' on rights and obligations of
parties.
Little
do
they
realize
the
consequences of such a direction to
'consider'.
If
the
representation
is
considered and accepted, the ex-employee
gets a relief, which he would not have got
on account of the long delay, all by reason
of the direction to `consider'. If the
representation is considered and rejected,
the ex-employee files an application/writ
petition, not with reference to the original
cause of action of 1982, but by treating the
rejection of the representation given in
2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is
made for quashing the rejection of
representation and for grant of the relief
claimed
in
the
representation.
The
Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain
such applications/petitions ignoring the
huge delay preceding the representation,
and proceed to examine the claim on merits
and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of
limitation or the laches gets obliterated or
ignored.

10. Every representation to the
government for relief, may not be replied
on merits. Representations relating to
matters which have become stale or barred
by limitation, can be rejected on that
ground alone, without examining the merits
of the claim. In regard to representations
unrelated to the department, the reply may
be only to inform that the matter did not
concern the department or to inform the
appropriate department. Representations
with incomplete particulars may be replied
by seeking relevant particulars. The replies
to such representations, cannot furnish a
fresh cause of action or revive a stale or
dead claim.?

14. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned judgments passed by the
Tribunal.

15. The instant writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 429
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C. J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 253 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rohit Bhatt & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli, S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ram Tiwari

A. Service Law - Primary Teacher -
Selection - Recruitment Examination -
Possession of minimum qualification -
Respondent-candidate duly passed the
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
BTC course - Mistake was at the behest of
appellant in preparation of result of BTC
course - Effect - Held, on account of
mistake, the respondent No. 1-petitioner
was declared as failed by the Appellants.
The
mistake
is
attributable
to
the
Appellants and for such a mistake the
respondent No. 1-petitioner cannot be
made to suffer - The delay in correction of
the mark sheet of the respondent No. 1petitioner
is
at
the
behest
of
the
Appellants - The respondent No. 1petitioner's
candidature
for
Primary
Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019
cannot be faulted. (Para 16 and 17)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C. J.
&
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.)

1. The present special appeal is
preferred by the Appellants challenging the
judgement and order dated September 8,
2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2020 (Rohit
Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others) and
judgement and order dated July 30, 2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil
Misc. Review Application No. 158 of 2021.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent
No.1-petitioner secured admission in BTC
Training Course 2015 in Jaymurti College
Nagla Ball, Sirsaganj, Firozabad. The
respondent No.1-petitioner passed the first
semester
examination.
Thereafter
the
respondent No.1-petitioner has also passed
the second semester written exam of BTC
Training Course (Batch 2015) and was sent
for internship on August 31, 2017 to Primary
School Chandari, Vikas Khand Madanpur,
Firozabad. The Respondent No.1-petitioner
appeared
before
aforesaid
college
on
September 4, 2017 and completed his
internship on October 13, 2017. Result of
internship was declared on October 13, 2017
and respondent No.1-petitioner obtained
97/100 marks. The Respondent No.1petitioner on October 13, 2017 submitted the
above-mentioned result in the office of the
Principal, District Institute of Education and
Training, Firozabad and thereafter the result
of the second semester of BTC Course-2015
was declared on March 21, 2018, in which
the respondent No.1-petitioner was found
unsuccessful due to absence in internship.

3.

Thereafter,
respondent
No.1petitioner on enquiry came to know that the
marks of internship of second semester was
not available with the Principal, District
Institute
of
Education
and
Training,
Firozabad (Appellant No.4) although the
same was submitted on October 13, 2017. On
September 19, 2018, respondent No.1petitioner submitted an application along with
the photocopy of the result of the internship
of second semester and other documents
before the Secretary, Examination Regulatory
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad
(Appellant No.2), however, the result of the
respondent No.1-petitioner was not corrected
by the respondent authorities.

4. On October 28, 2018, Principal,
District Institute of Education and Training,
Firozabad (Appellant No.4) has issued a
letter
to
the
Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Uttar
Pradesh,
Allahabad (Appellant No.2) and informed
that the marks of the respondent No.1petitioner of the internship of second
semester of BTC 2015 have not been
shown in the marksheet and requested to
correct the marks of the respondent No.1petitioner in respect of second semester
internship and issue a correct mark sheet to
the respondent No.1-petitioner.

5. In the meantime, the Appellants
invited online application for Primary
1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Rohit Bhatt & Ors.
431
Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019.
The last date for submission of the online
application was December 22, 2018. The
respondent No.1-petitioner applied for the
Primary
Teachers
Recruitment
Examination, 2019.

6. There was inaction on the part of
Appellants in issuing corrected mark sheet
and as such the respondent No.1-petitioner
preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.89
of 2019 (Rohit Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and
others) before this Court. On January 4,
2019 an order was passed in Writ Petition
No. 89 of 2019 as an interim measure
permitting the respondent No.1-petitioner
to provisionally appear in the Primary
Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019.

7. In compliance of the above-mentioned
order dated January 4, 2019 passed by this
Court,
respondent
No.1-petitioner
was
permitted to appear in the examination of
Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination,
2019 on January 6, 2019. The result of the
aforesaid examination was declared on May
12, 2020 in which the result of the respondent
No.1-petitioner has not been shown due to
pendency of the above-mentioned writ petition
before this Court.

8.

Under
the
circumstances,
respondent No.1-petitioner has filed Writ
Petition No. 5910 of 2020 before this Court
seeking
mandamus
commanding
the
respondents to declare the result of the
respondent No.1-petitioner in respect of the
examination
of
Primary
Teachers
Recruitment Examination 2019 and in case
the respondent No.1-petitioner is successful
in the aforesaid examination, he may be
permitted
to
participate
in
selection
proceedings of the primary teachers in
Uttar Pradesh.

9. In the meantime, Appellants have
issued the corrected mark sheet to the
respondent No.1-petitioner in respect of
BTC Course-2015 in which the respondent
No.1-petitioner has been shown to have
passed.

10. The above-mentioned Writ
Petition No.5910 of 2020 along with Writ
Petition No.89 of 2019 was finally decided
by impugned judgment and order dated
September 8, 2020 with the direction that
as the mark sheet has been issued and
respondent No.1-petitioner has appeared in
the examination and result has also been
declared, further steps shall be taken in
terms of the result so declared. It is further
directed that steps shall be taken in
accordance with result declared in respect
of
the
respondent
No.1-petitioner
expeditiously preferably within a period of
four weeks from the date of filing of the
application
before
the
respondent
?
Appellant No. 3.

11. It is submitted on behalf of
Appellants that the respondent No.1petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the
training course in respect of second
semester and the result of the fourth
semester of the BTC training course was
declared on December 12, 2018 and the net
result of the total semester of the
respondent No.1-petitioner concluded to
have failed and as such it is argued that on
the last date for submission of the online
application in respect of Primary Teachers
Recruitment Examination 2019, respondent
No.1-petitioner
did
not
possess
the
minimum qualification as prescribed under
the relevant rule. It is also submitted on
behalf of the Appellants that the opposite
party has submitted a false declaration in
respect of the result of BTC Training
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Course at the time of submission of online
form.

12. It is submitted on behalf of
Respondent no.1 that the marks of the
internship was not declared by the
Appellants despite the fact that the
respondent
No.1-petitioner
successfully
completed the internship for the second
semester
and
the
marks
were
duly
forwarded to the concerned authority. It is
submitted that the mistake of not taking
into consideration the marks in the
internship of second semester is at the
behest of the Appellants for which the
respondent
No.1-petitioner
cannot
be
faulted and any such corrected mark sheet
being issued to the respondent No.1petitioner subsequently would relate back
to the date of the result.

13. The result of BTC examination
was declared on March 21, 2018 in which
the respondent No.1-petitioner was shown
as unsuccessful on account of absence in
the internship of second semester despite
the fact that the respondent No.1-petitioner
had successfully completed the internship
and the marks were also submitted on
October 13, 2017. The respondent No.1petitioner thereafter had applied before the
authority
concerned
for
issuance
of
corrected mark sheet by showing the marks
of the respondent No.1-petitioner in respect
of internship of second semester in BTC
course. It is not dispute between the parties
that the respondent No.1-petitioner would
have passed the BTC course in case the
aforesaid marks of internship would have
been included in the result prepared by the
authority concerned.

14. The mistake in preparation of the
result of the BTC course was at the behest of
the Appellant. Although respondent No.1petitioner had successfully completed the
internship in the second semester of the BTC
course and thereafter has further successfully
completed the remaining semesters, when the
result of the BTC course was declared, the
respondent No.1-petitioner was shown as
failed solely on account of non consideration
of the marks obtained by the respondent
No.1-petitioner in internship in second
semester. On October 28, 2018 the Principal,
District Institute of Education and Training,
Firozabad has written a letter to the
Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar
Pradesh, Allahabad (Appellant No.2) for
issuance of the corrected mark sheet by
including the marks already obtained by the
respondent No.1-petitioner in the internship
completed in the second semester.

15. It is not the case of the Appellants
that
on
account
of
any
fraud
or
misrepresentation,
respondent
No.1petitioner
has
claimed
the
eligibility
qualification in the Primary Teachers
Recruitment
Examination,
2015.
The
mistake in not considering the marks of
internship of second semester by the
Appellants was brought to the notice of the
examining
body
immediately
by
the
respondent No.1-petitioner.

16. It is further not in dispute that
subsequent to the cut off date the mark
sheet of the respondent No.1-petitioner has
been corrected by the Appellants thereby
accepting the mistake in issuance of the
earlier mark sheet. The respondent No.1petitioner had duly passed the BTC course
before cut off date, however, on account of
mistake, the respondent No.1-petitioner
was declared as failed by the Appellants.
The
mistake
is
attributable
to
the
Appellants and for such a mistake the
respondent No.1-petitioner cannot be made
to suffer.
1 All. U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Lko. Vs. Poonam Dwivedi
433

17. The Appellants have submitted that
the respondent No.1-petitioner had filed a false
declaration in the application form for Primary
Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019 as on
the cut off date the respondent No.1-petitioner
did not have prescribed qualification for
applying in the aforesaid examination. In this
respect, it is to be noted that prior to the cut off
date the mistake/error in the result of BTC
Course 2015 of the respondent No.1-petitioner
was brought to the notice of the Appellants by
the respondent No.1-petitioner. Appellant No.4
by his communication dated October 28, 2018
has acknowledged the aforesaid mistake and
has recommended to Appellant No.2 for
issuance of the corrected mark sheet. The delay
in correction of the mark sheet of the
respondent No.1-petitioner is at the behest of
the Appellants and for no fault of the
respondent No.1-petitioner, the respondent
No.1-petitioner
candidature
for
Primary
Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019
cannot be faulted. Once the respondent No.1petitioner has duly passed the BTC course on
the relevant date. The Appellants cannot be
permitted to take benefit of their own mistake
and subsequently objected to the candidature of
the respondent No.1-petitioner for Primary
Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019.

18. In the result, we do not find any error
in the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge and as such the present
Special Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 433
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Special Appeal. No. 467 of 2022
&
Special Appeal. No. 464 of 2022
&
Special Appeal. No. 465 of 2022
&
Special Appeal. No. 466 of 2022

U.P.
Subordinate
Services
Selection
Commission Lko. ...Appellant
Versus
Poonam Dwivedi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Alok Mishra, Sri Abhay Pratap Singh,
C.S.C., Priyanka Singh

A.
Service Law
-
UP Public
Service
(Reservation
for
Economically
Weaker
Sections) Act, 2020 - Post of Health workers
(female) - Selection - Reservation under
Economic Weaker Section (EWS) segment
claimed - Income certificate was issued
prior
to
the
date
of
issuance
of
advertisement - Relevance - Petitioners
were considered under General category -
Legality challenged - Held, the action of the
appellants ignoring the certificates and
considering the case of the writ petitioners
in open category which they did not make
the cut-off for the open category cannot be
faulted. (Para 38)
B. Procedural law - Non-impleadment of
last selected candidate - Objection raised in
the counter affidavit filed in writ petition -
However, no effort to cure the defects was
made - Effect - Held, the writ petitioners
did not implead the last selected candidates
of the open category rather some randomly
selected candidates have been impleaded,
this shall not cure the defect of not
impleading the last appointed candidates
from the open category - Ranjan Kumar's
case relied upon. (Para 36 and 40)
Special Appeal allowed and Writ petition
dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited: