# Sunil Kumar v. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Parishad, Lucknow & others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 298
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-v-director-rajya-shaikshik-anusandhan-parishad-lucknow-others-39509
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

3All] Sunil Kumar V. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Parishad, Lucknow & others 298
aside and the matter is remanded
back
to
the
appellate
authority
(respondent no.1) to decide the appeal
afresh in the light of the observations
made above within three months of the
receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment provided it is filed within two
months from today. It is made clear that
the appellate authority shall decide the
appeal
without
being
prejudiced
or
influenced by any of the observations
made in this judgment particularly and in
accordance with material before him and
in accordance with law.

13. Writ petition is allowed and the
case is remanded back to respondent no. 1
appellate authority for decision Appeal in
accordance with law.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6XQLO .XPDU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LUHFWRU 5DM\D 6KDLNVKLN $QXVDQGKDQ
$XU 3UDVKLNVKDQ 3DULVKDG 8WWDU 3UDGHVK
/XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $VKRN %KXVKDQ
6KUL $QLO %KXVKDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 6& 9HUPD
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
3HWLWLRQHU D FDQGLGDWH IRU 6%7& FRXUVH
KDG VHFXUHG PRUH WKDQ TXDOLW\ SRLQW
PDUNV PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH QHZV LWHP %XW
KLV QDPH GLG QRW DSSHDU LQ VHFRQG OLVW ±
,Q HDUOLHU SHWLWLRQ WKH &RXUW E\ LQWHULP
RUGHU SHUPLWWHG SHWLWLRQHU SURYLVLRQDOO\
WR MRLQ WKH FRXUVH ± +H VXFFHVVIXOO\
FRPSOHWHG 7UDLQLQJ ± %XW QRW DOORZHG WR
DSSHDU
LQ
H[DPV
E\
'LUHFWRU
LQ
SXUVXDQFH RI JHQHUDO RUGHU E\ +LJK &RXUW
± $V SHU GLUHFWLRQ WR &RXUW SHWLWLRQHU
VXEPLWWHG IUHVK UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ EHIRUH
UHVSRQGHQW
QR

±
5HSUHVHQWDWLRQ
UHMHFWHG E\ 'LUHFWRU ± +HQFH SUHVHQW
SHWLWLRQ
+HOG ± SDUD
7KH 3HWLWLRQHU ZDV HOLJLEOH DV KH ZDV %
(G %XW KH ZDV QRW VHOHFWHG DV KLV TXDOLW\
SRLQW FRXOG QRW EH DVFHUWDLQHG 2QFH WKLV
GHILFLHQF\ ZDV UHPRYHG RQ JRYHUQPHQWV
RZQ DVNLQJ KH FRXOG QRW EH LJQRUHG 7KH
IDLOXUH WR DWWDFK PDUN VKHHW GLG QRW
PDNH KLP LQHOLJLEOH ,W ZDV D GHIHFW
ZKLFK FRXOG EH UHFWLILHG DW DQ\ WLPH
6LQFH WKH *RYHUQPHQW LWVHOI SHUPLWWHG
WKH FDQGLGDWHV WR PDNH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ
,I WKH\ KDYH EHHQ RYHUORRNHG IRU DQ\
UHDVRQ
WKH
UHVSRQGHQW
QR

DFWHG
LOOHJDOO\ LQ LQVLVWLQJ WKDW WKH PDUN VKHHW
FRXOG
QRW
EH
ILOHG
ODWHU
DV
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ GXH WR WKLV GHIHFW
ZDV LQFRPSOHWH DQG KH ZDV LQHOLJLEOH

By the Court

1. The petitioner a candidate for
Special Basic Training Certificate Course
(in brief SBTC) has approached this Court
by way of second writ petition for
redressal of his grievance. The basic facts
cannot be disputed, as they are clear from
the documents filed by the petitioner
before the respondents at one or the other
stage. They are also mentioned in the
impugned order passed by the Director.
Therefore, this petition is being disposed
of at the admission stage, without calling
for any counter affidavit, but after hearing
the learned standing counsel.
299 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
2. An advertisement was issued on
8.3.1998 by the respondents inviting
applications from eligible candidates for
SBTC as large number of vacancies were
existing.
Last
date
of
receipt
of
application was 30.3.1998. Petitioner
belonged to general category. He was
eligible,
therefore,
he
applied
on
16.31998. Along with his application he
claims to have submitted marks sheets of
the examination passed by him, from high
school to B. Ed. but his name did not find
place in the first list. In first week of May
1999
a
news-item
was
published
permitting candidates of all categories to
make
representations
with
complete
details, if they, had secured more than
quality point marks mentioned in the
news- item but their names did not appear
for any reason, for inclusion in second
list. Since the petitioner had secured 55.22
quality point marks which was much
more than 52.99 the quality point marks
determined for general candidate, he
made
representation
along
with
documents including the marks sheets but
it was not accepted as his name did not
find place in the district list as is clear
from Annexure -2 to the writ petition.
Being aggrieved by the order he filed
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23660 of
1999 and prayed that he may be permitted
during pendency of the writ petition to
undergo SBTC training. Interim order was
passed in the petition on 1.6.1999
permitting him provisionally to join the
course. He completed his training with
effect from 8.6.1999 to 30.6.1999. He was
also issued a certificate on successful
completion of training. By letter dated
12.7.1999 he was sent for practical
training but before its completion he was
relieved from training by the Basic
Education Officer. He was not permitted
to appear in the examination of SBTC
training as the Director had issued a
general order on 11.8.1999 in furtherance
of an order dated 28.7.1999 passed by this
Court in civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
27948 of 1999 Ghanshyam and others v.
State of U.P. and others vacating interim
order in not only the writ petition, but all
other petitions. The petitioner's writ
petition was finally disposed of long with
248 other writ petitions. The learned
judge categorised the petition in three
groups one, where the candidates had
obtained their degrees from outside the
state, second where the candidates had
obtained
degrees
by
correspondence
course or from parallel institutions and the
remainder were placed in the third
category. The writ petitions of the first
two category were not decided. The third
category was further divided in four
groups on the nature of controversy
involved.
The
leading
decision
was
delivered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.
19715 of 1999 Smt.Manju Devi v
Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan
Aur Prashikshan Parishad, Uttar Pradesh
and others decided on 9.12.1999. The
petition were disposed off with a direction
that petitioners shall make a fresh
representation by 21.1.2000, which shall
be decided by the Director by a speaking
order. The Learned judge further framed a
detailed scheme contain. Who should
make it and how it should be decided. The
petitioner in pursuance of the directions
given in the decision made a fresh
representation before respondent no. 1 on
11.1.2000 along with copies of 14
documents including marks sheets from
high school to B.E.D examination and
other
relevant
documents.
This
representation has been rejected by the
Director by order dated 31.3.2000. A
copy of the order has been filed as
3All] Sunil Kumar V. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Parishad, Lucknow & others 300
Annexure -4 to this petition. It has been
challenged in this writ petition.

3. I have heard at length Sri Ashok
Bhushan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri S.C Verma, the learned
standing
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents.

4. The main question, and in my
opinion a very important question, that
arises for consideration in this petition is
whether the respondent no.1 who is the
Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan
Aur Prashikshan Parishad, U.P. Lucknow,
was justified either in law or in property
in
rejecting
the
representation
of
petitioner without adverting to the
documents filed by him in complete
disregard of the directions issued by this
Court. For this it is necessary to extract
paragraph 8 and 9 of the order dated
9.12.1999 :-

" Fresh Representations May Be Filed

8. All writ petitions, which are being
decided are of the year 1999 In many of
these writ petitions the candidate claim
that they were entitled for quality point
marks on the basis of degrees, sports
activity, NCC or extra curricular activity
etc.
and reservation and had filed
necessary
certificates;
yet
necessary
quality marks were not awarded. The
respondents claim that no certificates
were submitted. In some of the petitions,
there is bonafide mistakes also.

9. The respondents themselves had
published a news - item for filing
representations. In most of the writ
petitions, the claim of the petitioners have
been decided or if decided it is by a non
speaking order. In view of this it would be
proper that petitioners may file their
representation again and the Director or
any officer nominated by him may
dispose off the representations by a
speaking order".

5. I have extracted these paragraphs
as in my opinion they are very necessary
for deciding this petition. Paragraph 8
makes clear the stand of the department in
those petition and paragraph 9 the purpose
for directing the petitioners to make fresh
representations. The department contested
those petitions and their specific claim
was that since petitioners had not filed
certificates to enable the department to
calculate their quality point marks they
were not entitled to any relief. But this
Court did not agree with this submission
as the state itself published news- item
permitting
petitioners
to
make
representation. The Court constructed the
news-item as permitting the applicants to
produce certificates etc to enable the
department to determine their quality
point marks. For instance, if someone had
not filed the marks sheet ever though
certificate was filed or someone did not
produce the certificate that he was entitled
to be selected under reserve category or
under sports quote even though he had
claimed to be selected on this basis then
he
could
produce
it
by
way
of
representation in furtherance of the newsitem. The Court was obviously persuaded
by its concern for justice and its anxiety to
avoid any hardship to any petitioner for
technical reasons, specifically when it was
admitted to the respondents that there
were still 4,000 vacancies, therefore it
permitted the petitioners not only to make
representation but widened its scope by
permitting
them
to
furnish
such
information and file such documents as
301 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
they considered relevant for decision of
there representations.
6. I would now examine whether the
respondent
no.1
in
deciding
the
representation filed by the petitioner
followed the directions issued by this
Court either in letter or spirit. In the
representation filed by the petitioner in
January, 2000 which is extracted in the
order of respondent no.1, it was stated
that the petitioner was a general category
candidate whose quality point mark was
55.2 but his name was not included in the
list for SBTC training and no attention
was paid even though he brought it to the
notice of the respondents. In support of
his claim he filed the documents as
directed by this Court. One of such
document was mark sheet of B. Ed. The
respondent no. 1 noticed this fact in his
order. He did not dispute its correctness.
But he rejected the representation, as
according to him, the petitioner was not
eligible. It was held that the petitioner's
application, that is the one filed in 1998,
was incomplete as even though he had
filed the B. Ed. certificate he had not filed
the mark sheet to enable the respondents
to determine quality point mark, therefore
his candidature could not be accepted and
he was ineligible. The respondent no.1 did
not calculate the quality point on the mark
sheet submitted by the petitioner as it was
filed after 30.3.1998 the last date for
receipt of application. In support of his
view, he referred to two decision of this
Court in paragraph 7 and 8 of the order,
one in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29107
of 1999 Alok Kumar Pandey v State of
U.P. and others decided on 19.7.1999 in
which the notification issued by the state
Government on 9.1.1998 was upheld, on
the basis of which advertisement was
issued on 8.3.1998. And the other in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 20159 of 1999
Babu Ram Bhartiya and others v State .of
U.P. and others decided on 18.5.1999 in
which this Court held that in absence of
any provision, no papers could be
accepted after the last date for receipt of
SBTC forms. In paragraph 9 it was
mentioned that a list of 27,000 candidates
had been prepared. The last date for any
candidate of the list to file any document
was 30.3.1998

7. It is thus obvious that the only
defect in the application form filed within
time was that the petitioner had not
attached the mark sheet of B. Ed. Even
though petitioner denies it but assuming it
to be so, once this Court permitted
petitioner to file it the respondents should
have calculated the quality point mark
taking into account the marks of B. Ed.
But the respondent no.1 rejected the
paragraph 8 of his order no document or
paper could be accepted after the last date.
He was also of the view that calculation
of quality point mark on the basis of mark
sheet
or
any certificate filed after
30.3.1998 could not be done. In other
words, no mark sheet or certificate could
be accepted after 0.3.1998. In taking this
view he committed manifest error of law.
I do not propose to discuss how far the
ratio in Babu Ram Bhartiya (Supra)
referred in paragraph 8 was applicable
and how it has been misapplied as I am
firmly of the view that the respondent no.
1 did not comply with the directions
issued by this Court. The order dated
9.12.1999 was passed after considering
the objection, raised on behalf of the
respondents, that the petitioners had not
filed necessary papers to enable the
respondents to determine quality point
marks, yet the Court permitted, the
petitioner in paragraph 11 of its order, not
only to file representation and the
3All] Sunil Kumar V. Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan Parishad, Lucknow & others 302
documents
filed
along
with
the
application but, "any other information or
document which the petitioner considers
relevant for decision of his representation
" and directed respondent no. 1 to decide
the representation by a speaking order.
The directions were clear and explicit. It
did not leave any option to the respondent
no. 1 except to consider documents filed
by petitioner and decide whether he had
requisite
quality
point
marks.
The
respondent no. 1 could not go behind the
direction. He was bound to accept the
document filed by petitioner. Once he did
not dispute its authenticity he should have
calculated the quality point mark. The
respondent no. 1 in observing that no
document
could
be
accepted
after
30.3.1998 acted in complete disregard of
the order passed by this Court. He did not
appreciate that it was direction issued by
this Court in writ jurisdiction. It had
become final. The order was neither
challenged in appeal before this Court nor
before any higher Court, The department
was bound by it unless it was recalled or
set aside. The respondent no. 1 was not
exercising review jurisdiction over the
order passed by this Court nor he could sit
in judgment over it. He was bound to pass
order in accordance with the directions
issued by this Court.

8. It is necessary to clarify in this
connection the purpose of direction to
pass a speaking order. The Court issues
such direction and permits a petitioner to
file representation because many a times
the
grievances
raised
involves
determination of facts. A speaking order
as the expression indicates means an
order, which must gives reasons in
support of it to enable the Court to judge
its
correctness
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case. The order must
be passed after application of mind.
Where the Court directs an order to be
passed in the light of observation made by
it the exercise of jurisdiction is limited.
For instance, this Court while passing the
order on 9.12.1999 had directed the
respondent
no.1
to
decide
the
representation
on
information
and
documents filed by the petitioner. The
respondent no. 1 did not advert to the
document filed by the petitioner and
rejected the representation on irrelevant
considerations in complete disregard of
the directions issued by this Court. Mere
writing few paragraphs did not make it a
speaking order on the representation of
the petitioner. The authorities when
required to pass a speaking order are
obliged to pass an order which must not
be a formality but an order which can be
upheld in law. The respondent no. 1
rejected the representation on the ground
that the petitioner was ineligible. But this
was not correct. Because even if it is
assumed that the mark sheet of B. Ed. was
not filed it did not render the petitioner
ineligible. His application was defective
at the most and that is why his quality
point marks were not calculated. The
difference between eligibility and defect
is that the former could not be cured after
expiry of time for filing the application
but latter could be removed at any time.
When this Court did not agree with the
respondents in earlier petition that the
petitioner could not be selected due to
absence of mark sheet, it was of the
opinion that non-filing of mark sheet was
defect, only, which could be removed
even subsequently. The spirit of the order
was that the candidates should not be
deprived of the opportunity to undergo
SBTC for some technical omission The
order of the respondent was, therefore,
contrary to the order passed by this Court.
303 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

9. There is yet another reason for
quashing the order of respondent no. 1 He
has taken the view that since petitioner
did not file his mark sheet of B. Ed. prior
to 30.31998 he was ineligible and could
not file it subsequently. But the mistake
committed by his was that he did not
appreciate the purpose and effect of the
new-item. The petitioner has applied
within time. He has filed his certificates.
He claims to have filed the mark sheet.
But the absence of mark sheet for B. Ed.
prevented the department from calculating
his quality point marks. That is why, even
with high percentage his name did not
find place in the list. But when the
Government itself invited applicants to
make representation if the quality point
marks was more than the prescribed nom
and the petitioner produced the mark
sheet then there was no justification to
ignore it. The application was complete.
The petitioner was eligible as he was B.
Ed. But he was not selected as his quality
point could not be ascertained. Once this
deficiency was removed on governments
own asking he could not be ignored. The
failure to attach mark sheet did not make
his ineligible. It was a defect which could
be rectified at any time. Since the
Government
itself
permitted
the
candidates to make representation, if they
have been overlooked for any reason, the
respondent no. 1 acted illegally in
insisting that the mark sheet could not be
filed later, as the petitioner's application
due to this defect was incomplete and he
was ineligible.

10. In the result this petition
succeeds and is allowed The order dated
31.3.2000 passed by respondent no. 1
Annexure-4 to the writ petition is
quashed. Since the mark sheet of B. Ed.
filed by petitioner was not disputed, the
respondent no. 1 is directed to calculate
his quality point mark and grant him
admission to Special BTC Training
Course. The petitioner has completed his
training.
He
shall
be permitted to
complete practical training and appear in
the examination as directed by this Court
on 9.12.1999 paragraph 13 (ii) of the
order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
19715 of 1999 Smt. Manju Devi v.
Director, Rajya Shaikshik Anusandhan
Aur Prashikshan Parishad, Uttar Pradesh
and others. The aforesaid directions shall
be complied by respondent no. 1 within
one month from the date a certified copy
of this order is produced before him.

11. Parties shall bear their own
costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(37(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(37(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21
%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21
%/( 2 %+$77 -
7+( +21
%/( 2 %+$77 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

%URRNH %RQG ,QGLD /LPLWHG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL %KDUDW -L $JDUZDO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83 7UDGH 7D[ $FW 5XOHV 5XOH,
$GYDQFH
5HWXUQ
VXEPLWWHG
E\
WKH
$VVHVHH GXULQJ WKH PRQWK LWVHOI WKH
UHTXLUHG DPRXQW ZDV QRW ZLWKLQ WKH