# Sunita Kumari Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1171
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-04
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 7806 of 2021
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunita-kumari-patel-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47363
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Appointment - Benefits
of reservation cannot be obtained by
virtue of marriage - The recognition of a
lady
as
a
member
of
a
backward
community in view of her marriage would
not be relevant for the purpose of
entitlement to reservation under Article
16(4) of the Constitution for the reason
that she as a member of the forward
caste, had an advantageous start in life
and a marriage with a male belonging to a
backward class would not entitle her to
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the facility of reservation given to a
backward community. (Para 6)

Significance of requiring a caste certificate
bearing the name of the parent of a
candidate - There cannot be any dispute
that the caste is determined by birth and
the caste cannot be changed by marriage
with a person of Scheduled Caste. (Para 6)

In
present
case,
the
petitioner
had
participated in a recruitment exercise initiated
by the respondents for appointment of
Assistant Teachers. The petitioner also sought
the extension of the benefits of reservation by
virtue of belonging to a backward class.
However, in support of the aforesaid she
submitted a caste certificate which bore the
name of her husband. On 04 December 2020,
the respondents had issued a clarification
providing that all caste certificates must be
issued and bear a date prior to the cutoff date
namely 28 May 2020. Additionally, it was
provided that it should be ensured that the
caste certificate bears the name of the parent
of the applicant. (Para 3)

When the petitioner initially appeared at the
counselling session, she was apprised that the
caste certificate submitted by her alongwith
the online application would be treated as
invalid since it bore the name of her husband
and she was accordingly directed to obtain a
fresh caste certificate. (Para 4)

B. Significance of cut-off date - The
relevance of a cut-off date is not just to
test the eligibility of all candidates but
also ensures that a definitive date is
fixed
by
which
all
prospective
candidates may ensure compliance with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
advertisement.
The
last
date
so
prescribed cannot be one which may
shift or be amended based on the
requests of individual candidates: If that
were permitted, it may not only derail
the entire recruitment process but also
raise the spectre of allegations being
made of illegal exercise of discretion by
the recruitment agency. (Para 8)

In any case the Court bears in mind the
element of public interest and the imperatives
bearing upon the respondents to ensure that
a public examination and selection process is
brought to an end within specified timelines.
(Para 11)

Petitioner's caste certificate came to be issued
in her name on 02 June 2020. The stipulation
of last date as reiterated under GO dated 04
December 2020, that reemphasized that all
candidates would have to furnish and obtain a
caste certificate by 28 May 2020, was clearly
breached with the petitioner submitting a
caste certificate issued after the said date.
The candidature of the petitioner could not be
processed further as direction had been
issued for according closure to the selection
process initiated in 2019, (Para 4, 7)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

9 All Sunita Kumari Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1171
of the petitioner would be 67.30 which is
more than the last selected candidate.

20. The petitioner has not stated in the
writ petition about the quality point marks
secured by the last selected candidate.
Strangely, the petitioner without knowing
the actual quality point marks secured by
the last selected candidate has made the
statement in paragraph 20 of the writ
petition that the petitioner's aggregate is
much more than the last selected candidate.

21. Since the averments made in
paragraph 20 of the writ petition are bald
and vague, therefore, no reliance can be
placed upon it.

22. It is further relevant to mention
that Apex Court in the case of Rahul
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Others in Writ Petition (Civil) No.378 of
2021 while interpreting Government Order
dated 04.12.2020 has held that where the
petitioner has filled in wrong marks to
secure selection anyhow, his candidature
deserves to be rejected.

23. So far as the contention of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
advertisement does not stipulate that grace
marks are to be excluded while filling total
marks secured by a candidate, the said
contention is misconceived for two reasons;
there is no pleading in the writ petition in
respect of the said contention nor the
advertisement has been enclosed by the
petitioner with the writ petition to buttress
the aforesaid submission. Secondly, the
grace marks are notional and have been
awarded with an object that a candidate
should not lose one year and therefore, the
concession given by the examination body
to the candidate for promotion cannot be
added to the actual marks obtained by the
candidate as the grace marks are not
secured by the petitioner on merit. It is
worth pointing out that if the grace marks
are allowed to be added to the actual marks
obtained by a candidate, that would put
other candidates at disadvantage, who have
secured and maintained high educational
standards by securing higher marks by their
sheer hard work and determination.

24. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1171
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

WRIT A No. 7806 of 2021

Sunita Kumari Patel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Dubey

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

A. Service Law - Appointment - Benefits
of reservation cannot be obtained by
virtue of marriage - The recognition of a
lady
as
a
member
of
a
backward
community in view of her marriage would
not be relevant for the purpose of
entitlement to reservation under Article
16(4) of the Constitution for the reason
that she as a member of the forward
caste, had an advantageous start in life
and a marriage with a male belonging to a
backward class would not entitle her to
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the facility of reservation given to a
backward community. (Para 6)

Significance of requiring a caste certificate
bearing the name of the parent of a
candidate - There cannot be any dispute
that the caste is determined by birth and
the caste cannot be changed by marriage
with a person of Scheduled Caste. (Para 6)

In
present
case,
the
petitioner
had
participated in a recruitment exercise initiated
by the respondents for appointment of
Assistant Teachers. The petitioner also sought
the extension of the benefits of reservation by
virtue of belonging to a backward class.
However, in support of the aforesaid she
submitted a caste certificate which bore the
name of her husband. On 04 December 2020,
the respondents had issued a clarification
providing that all caste certificates must be
issued and bear a date prior to the cutoff date
namely 28 May 2020. Additionally, it was
provided that it should be ensured that the
caste certificate bears the name of the parent
of the applicant. (Para 3)

When the petitioner initially appeared at the
counselling session, she was apprised that the
caste certificate submitted by her alongwith
the online application would be treated as
invalid since it bore the name of her husband
and she was accordingly directed to obtain a
fresh caste certificate. (Para 4)

B. Significance of cut-off date - The
relevance of a cut-off date is not just to
test the eligibility of all candidates but
also ensures that a definitive date is
fixed
by
which
all
prospective
candidates may ensure compliance with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
advertisement.
The
last
date
so
prescribed cannot be one which may
shift or be amended based on the
requests of individual candidates: If that
were permitted, it may not only derail
the entire recruitment process but also
raise the spectre of allegations being
made of illegal exercise of discretion by
the recruitment agency. (Para 8)

In any case the Court bears in mind the
element of public interest and the imperatives
bearing upon the respondents to ensure that
a public examination and selection process is
brought to an end within specified timelines.
(Para 11)

Petitioner's caste certificate came to be issued
in her name on 02 June 2020. The stipulation
of last date as reiterated under GO dated 04
December 2020, that reemphasized that all
candidates would have to furnish and obtain a
caste certificate by 28 May 2020, was clearly
breached with the petitioner submitting a
caste certificate issued after the said date.
The candidature of the petitioner could not be
processed further as direction had been
issued for according closure to the selection
process initiated in 2019, (Para 4, 7)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Suman Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [Writ-A No. 8312
of 2021 decided on 03.08.2021] (Para 6)

2. Gaurav Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [2017
(5) ADJ 494] (Para 7)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Bindresh Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [2021 (1)
ADJ 269] (Para 5, 9)

2. Ram Kumar Gijoriya [(2016) 4 SCC 754]
(Para 9)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
28.04.2021,
passed
by
District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Baghpat,
District
Baghpat.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and
Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel who
appears for District Basic Education
Officer.
9 All Sunita Kumari Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1173

2. This petition has been preferred
seeking the following reliefs:-

"i. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 28.04.2021 passed
by respondent No.3 i.e. District Basic
Education
Officer
Baghpat,
District
Baghpat regarding the appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher
(Annexure No.8 to the writ petition).

ii. issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent
No.3
i.e.
District
Basic
Education
Officer
Baghpat,
District
Baghpat to appoint the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of
her eligibility.

....."

3. The petitioner had participated in a
recruitment
exercise
initiated
by
the
respondents for appointment of Assistant
Teachers.
The
selection
process
was
undertaken against 69,000 vacancies. The
petitioner also sought the extension of the
benefits of reservation by virtue of belonging
to a backward class. However, in support of
the aforesaid she submitted a caste certificate
which bore the name of her husband. On 04
December 2020, the respondents had issued a
clarification
providing
that
all
caste
certificates must be issued and bear a date
prior to the cut-off date namely 28 May 2020.
Additionally, it was provided that it should be
ensured that the caste certificate bears the
name of the parent of the applicant. The
relevant stipulations in the order of 04
December 2020 read thus:-

"(1) csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk vkosnu
i= izLrqr djus dh fu/kkZfjr dh x;h vfUre
frfFk fnukad 28&05&2020 rd fuxZr fd;s x;s
fuokl izek.k i= ,oa tkfr izek.k i= dks gh
Lohdkj fd;k tk;A

(2) ek0 mPpre U;k;ky; us oylEek
iky cuke dksphu fo'o&fo|ky; 1996 S.C.C.545
,oa jkes'k HkkbZ nHkkj uk;dk cuke xqtjkr jkT;
,oa vU; flfoy vihy ua0654@2012 esa ;g
Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fdlh efgyk dk nwljh tkfr
esa 'kknh dj ysus ek= ls mldh tkfr dk LVsVl
ugha cny tk;sxk] cfYd ftl tkfr esa mlus
tUe fy;k gS] ogh ekuh tk;sxhA vr% ,slh efgyk
vH;FkhZ ftlds }kjk izLrqr tkfr izek.k i= ds
vk/kkj ij vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr djrs gq, p;u
izkIr fd;k x;k gS] mldk p;u fujLr dj fn;k
tk;A

(3) fuokl izek.k i= vU; izns'k dk
gksus dk izdj.k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k
ls vPNkfnr gS rFkk bl lEcU/k esa 'kklukns'k
la[;k&588@68&5&2019] fnukad 07&06&2019
fuxZr gSA bl lEcU/k esa mDr 'kklukns'k ds
vkyksd esa dk;Zokgh dh tk;A"

4. When the petitioner initially
appeared at the counselling session, she
was apprised that the caste certificate
submitted by her along with the online
application would be treated as invalid
since it bore the name of her husband and
she was accordingly directed to obtain a
fresh caste certificate. That caste certificate
came to be issued in her name on 02 June
2020. Upon noticing the aforesaid facts, the
respondents taking into consideration the
government orders of 31 March 2021 and
04 May 2021 have held that since the caste
certificate had come to be issued after 28
May 2020 and a direction had been issued
for according closure to the selection
process initiated in 2019, the candidature of
the petitioner could not be processed
further.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the original caste certificate
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which was submitted by the petitioner as
well as the caste certificate obtained now
show that both her husband as well as her
father belong to the same backward class. It
was in this context submitted that the
insistence of the respondents upon the
petitioner obtaining a caste certificate in the
name of her father was clearly superfluous
and in any case could not have resulted in
the denial of extension of reservation
benefits to the petitioner. It was further
submitted that the petitioner pursuant to the
advice given by the respondents had
applied for the grant of a fresh caste
certificate bearing the name of her father on
19 May 2020. However, according to the
petitioner, the respondents themselves
delayed the issuance of that certificate
which ultimately came to be issued on 02
June 2020. In view of the aforesaid it was
submitted that the petitioner cannot be held
liable for the delay on the part of the
respondents. Learned counsel has lastly
placed reliance upon a judgment rendered
by a learned Judge in Bindresh Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others [2021(1) ADJ
269] to submit that bearing in mind the
social objectives underlying the grant of
reservation, the respondents were obliged
to consider the candidature of the petitioner
and therefore prays for the impugned order
being set-aside.

6. Dealing with the significance of
requiring a caste certificate bearing the
name of the parent of a candidate, this
Court in Suman vs. State of U.P. and
others [Writ-A No.8312 of 2021 decided
on 3.8.2021] held thus:-

"Insofar as the OBC certificate
bearing the name of the husband of the
petitioner is concerned, the Court finds that
the stipulation of the caste certificate
bearing the name of a parent serves a
salutary and significant purpose. Caste as is
well settled is determined by birth. The
identification of a person as belonging to a
particular caste or social class has an
unbroken and undeviating connect with the
family of the individual. The candidate
must therefore necessarily establish that he
or she was born into a family which
belongs
to
a
backward
class
duly
recognised as such by the appropriate
government. A certificate bearing the name
of the parent thus serves the purposes of
enabling the respondents to ascertain and
verify the actual caste of the holder thereof
as existing at the time of birth.

While it is well settled that
benefits of reservation cannot be obtained
by virtue of marriage, the Court may only
extract the following passage from the
decision of the Supreme Court in Sobha
Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara
Swamy:-

"10. What then remains is the fact
that the appellant though assigned the caste
of her father Murahari Rao, namely, the
Sistu Karnam community, had married a
tribal
belonging
to
the
Bhagatha
community. On the basis of this marriage,
it is argued that she must be taken to have
acquired membership in the community of
her husband and consequently treated as a
member of that community. It is in that
context that the decision in Horo [(1972) 1
SCC 771 : AIR 1972 SC 1840] was relied
on. It is also contended that the decision
in Horo [(1972) 1 SCC 771 : AIR 1972 SC
1840] related to an election dispute and
consequently, the ratio of that decision
should govern the present case. We have
already indicated that there is nothing to
show that the marriage of the appellant
with Appala Raju was sanctioned or
approved by the elders of the Bhagatha
9 All Sunita Kumari Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1175
community or the Panchayat concerned or
was in tribal form or that the formalities
attending such a tribal marriage were
observed and the marriage was performed
after obtaining the approval of the elders of
the tribe. Even otherwise, we have
difficulty in accepting the position that a
non-tribal who marries a tribal could claim
to contest a seat reserved for tribals. Article
332
of
the
Constitution
speaks
of
reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in
Legislative Assemblies. The object is
clearly to give representation in the
legislature to Scheduled Tribe candidates,
considered to be deserving of such special
protection. To permit a non-tribal under
cover of a marriage to contest such a seat
would tend to defeat the very object of such
a reservation. The decision of this Court
in Valsamma
Paul v. Cochin
University [(1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] supports
this view. Neither the fact that a nonbackward female married a backward male
nor the fact that she was recognised by the
community thereafter as a member of the
backward community, was held to enable a
non-backward to claim reservation in terms
of
Article
15(4)
or
16(4)
of
the
Constitution.
Their
Lordships
after
noticing Bhoobum Moyee Debia v. Ram
Kishore Acharj Chowdhry [(1865) 10 MIA
279]
and Lulloobhoy
Bappoobhoy
Cassidass
Moolchund v. Cassibai [(187980) 7 IA 212 : ILR 5 Bom 110] held that a
woman on marriage becomes a member of
the family of her husband and thereby she
becomes a member of the caste to which
she has moved. The caste rigidity breaks
down and would stand as no impediment to
her becoming a member of the family to
which the husband belongs and to which
she gets herself transplanted. Thereafter,
this Court noticed that recognition by the
community was also important. Even then,
this Court categorically laid down that the
recognition of a lady as a member of a
backward community in view of her
marriage would not be relevant for the
purpose of entitlement to reservation under
Article 16(4) of the Constitution for the
reason that she as a member of the forward
caste, had an advantageous start in life and
a marriage with a male belonging to a
backward class would not entitle her to the
facility of reservation given to a backward
community. The High Court has applied
this decision to a seat reserved in an
election in terms of Article 332 of the
Constitution. We see no reason why the
principle relating to reservation under
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) laid down by this
Court should not be extended to the
constitutional reservation of a seat for a
Scheduled Tribe in the House of the People
or under Article 332 in the Legislative
Assembly......"

Reiterating the aforesaid position
in law in Sunita Singh v. State of U.P4., the
Supreme Court succinctly observed:-

5. There cannot be any dispute
that the caste is determined by birth and the
caste cannot be changed by marriage with a
person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly,
the appellant was born in "Agarwal"
family, which falls in general category and
not in Scheduled Caste. Merely because her
husband is belonging to a Scheduled Caste
category, the appellant should not have
been issued with a caste certificate showing
her caste as Scheduled Caste. In that
regard, the orders of the authorities as well
as the judgment of the High Court cannot
be faulted.

Regard must be had to the fact
that in Sunita Singh, the Supreme Court
was dealing with a caste certificate which
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
came to be issued based on the caste of the
husband. It was in the aforesaid backdrop
that it held that the caste certificate was
invalid. It is thus evident that it was to
avoid such situations and claims that the
respondents
insisted
upon
the
caste
certificate bearing the name of the parent of
the candidate. The aforesaid stipulation has
neither been challenged by the petitioner
nor can it be described as being arbitrary or
superfluous.

`
The Court additionally shudders to
imagine the enormous burden that would
stand placed upon a recruiting body before
whom caste certificates such as the one
produced by the petitioner here were placed
in support of claims for extension of
reservation benefits. In all such cases, the
recruiting agency would then have to
independently verify the family origins of
each such candidate in order to ascertain
whether the individual was born in a social
class to which benefits under Article 16 of
the Constitution stand conferred. Ms.
Archana Singh, learned counsel, apprises the
Court that the present recruitment was
undertaken to fill up 69,000 posts of
Assistant Teachers. Learned counsel informs
the
Court
that
146060
candidates
participated in the selection process. The
facts as noticed above underscore the
enormity of the avoidable and unnecessary
obligation which would stand placed on the
recruitment agency. In fact, placing such an
onus on the recruiting body may also have a
deleterious
effect
on
the
paramount
requirement of completing a selection
process connected with appointment to
public posts within a defined timeline. The
Court in view of the aforesaid facts is of the
considered view that there is no justification
for such an additional responsibility being
legally foisted upon the respondents."

7. Having noticed the salutary and
significant objective which underlies the
requirement of a caste certificate bearing
the name of a parent, the Court further
takes note of the last date as reiterated
under the Government Order dated 04
December 2020. That reemphasized that all
candidates would have to furnish and
obtain a caste certificate by 28 May 2020.
That stipulation was clearly breached with
the petitioner submitting a caste certificate
issued after the said date. The significance
of a cut-off date as fixed by respondents in
a large scale public examination was duly
emphasized and underlined by a Full Bench
of the Court in Gaurav Sharma vs. State
of U.P. and others [ 2017 (5) ADJ 494] in
the following terms:-

"The second aspect which must
necessarily be noted is the significance of a
last date prescribed in an advertisement and
its impact. A last date comes to be
prescribed
in
an
advertisement
or
recruitment notice to seek certain well
established objectives. It firstly puts all
prospective candidates on notice with
regard to the eligibility qualifications that
the employer desires a particular candidate
to hold. The prescription of the last date
also acts as information to the prospective
candidates to test and ascertain whether
they are eligible to participate in the
selection process. There are therefore, upon
the prescription of such a last date in the
advertisement no shifting timelines or
uncertainty. The prescription of such a
condition in the advertisement also eschews
any arbitrary action and denudes the
authority from wielding a discretion which
may be abused. One may in this connection
usefully refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others 7
9 All Sunita Kumari Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1177
which noticed the earlier precedents on the
subject and observed as follows:........."

8. As is manifest from the aforesaid
principles as enunciated in Gaurav Sharma,
the relevance of a cut-off date is not just to
test the eligibility of all candidates but also
ensures that a definitive date is fixed by
which all prospective candidates may
ensure compliance with the terms and
conditions of the advertisement. The last
date so prescribed cannot be one which
may shift or be amended based on the
requests of individual candidates. If that
were permitted, it may not only derail the
entire recruitment process but also raise the
spectre of allegations being made of illegal
exercise of discretion by the recruitment
agency.

9.

Significantly
the
aforesaid
observations do not appear to have been
brought to the attention of the learned
Judge who rendered judgment in Bindresh
Singh. The decision of the Full Bench was
brushed aside with the learned Judge
simply observing that it did not apply to the
facts of that case. In Bindresh, the learned
Judge proceeded to draw sustenance from
the decision in Ram Kumar Gijoriya
[(2016) 4 SCC 754] a decision which was
duly noticed by the Full Bench in Gaurav
Sharma and explained as follows: -

19. We then proceed to address the
second question framed for our consideration
and which pertains to the correctness or
otherwise of the judgment of the Division
Bench in Arvind Kumar Yadav. As noted
above, the sheet anchor of the case of the
appellant and the writ petitioners was the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram
Kumar Gijroya. It becomes relevant to note
that in the said case, the Supreme Court was
called upon to consider the correctness of a
judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court
which had overturned a judgment rendered
by a learned Single Judge of the said Court
who had followed two earlier precedents to
hold that the candidature of a Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidate could not
be turned down only on the ground that the
caste certificate was submitted after the last
date prescribed in the advertisement. The two
prior precedents which the Delhi High Court
considered were Pushpa v. Government
(NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281,
and Tej Pal Singh v. Government (NCT of
Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092. In the
appeal of Ram Kumar Gijroya, the learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
following the two precedents referred to
above had directed the respondents therein to
accept the OBC certificate of the appellant.
One of the significant and distinguishing
features of Ram Kumar Gijroya, which
immediately springs to light is that the
advertisement did not prescribe a cut off date
at all. The requirement of submitting the
OBC certificate was introduced only by a
notice issued by the Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board while declaring the
final results.

24. We are therefore of the
considered view that the Division Bench in
Arvind Kumar Yadav rightly noted the
distinct factual backdrop in which Ram
Kumar Gijroya came to be rendered. The
aspect of there being no consideration of
the impact of a negative stipulation in an
advertisement in the said judgment of the
Supreme
Court
clearly
escaped
the
Division
Benches
which
pronounced
judgments in Pravesh Kumar and Shubham
Gupta."

10. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds itself unable to tread the line as
adopted in Bindresh.
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. In any case the Court bears in
mind the element of public interest and the
imperatives bearing upon the respondents
to ensure that a public examination and
selection process is brought to an end
within specified timelines. It was these
factors which were emphasized in the
government orders of 31 March 2021 and
04 May 2021. For all the aforesaid reasons,
the Court finds no ground to interfere with
the impugned orders.

12. The writ petition fails and shall
stand dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1178
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

WRIT A No. 10634 of 2021

Mahendra Kumar, Constable ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Atiprita Gautam, Sri Vijay Gautam
(Senior Adv.), Vinod Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Cancellation
of
selection
-
Misrepresentation
-
Cancellation of appointment has been
affirmed where it gets established that
appointment had been obtained on the
strength of misrepresentation. (Para 7)

B. No violation of principles of natural
justice - It is only where facts are
disputed that an enquiry in the manner
contemplated in law would be necessary
- No further enquiry is required on the
admitted facts - Before passing the order
impugned an opportunity of hearing has been
given to petitioner. Petitioner has admitted
that he claimed appointment as dependent of
freedom fighter whereas he does not belong
to such category. Grant of reservation as
dependent
of
freedom
fighter
is
thus
admitted. There is no charge of misconduct
against petitioner to be proved in disciplinary
enquiry. The charge against petitioner is of
obtaining appointment on the strength of
misrepresentation and petitioner has admitted
facts w.r.t. this. Holding of disciplinary
enquiry in the circumstances of the present
case
is
thus
not
warranted
nor
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
selection/appointment would be illegal only
because disciplinary enquiry was not held in
the matter. (Para 8, 9)

C. No equity would arise in favour of the
employee merely because he has worked
for certain time. In the event petitioner's
appointment is sustained it would cause grave
injustice to thousands of those who have
secured marks above the petitioner but have
not been appointed. No equity is created in
favour of the petitioner to continue in
employment on account of his working for the
last about 5 years since the appointment has
been obtained by misrepresentation. (Para 7,
10)

D. Law is settled that fraud and justice
do not dwell together. Petitioner having
made misrepresentation in his application and
having derived advantage not due to him in
law would not be entitled to grant of
protection u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. U.O.I. Vs M. Bhaskaran, (1995) Suppl. (4)
SCC 100 (Para 7)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
01.06.2021, passed by Superintendent of
Police,
Unnao,
whereby
petitioner's
selection has been cancelled.