SPLAD/1239/2020 of State of U.P. AND 2 OTHERS Vs HIMANSHU YADAV on 18 December 2020

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1239 of 2020

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 OthersRespondent :- Himanshu YadavCounsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar RayCounsel for Respondent :- Jeet Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief JusticeHon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

An application is preferred to have exemption from filing thecertified copy of the order dated 9th June, 2020 passed bylearned Single Bench which is under challenge in the instantappeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, theapplication is allowed. The appellant is exempted from filingcertified copy of the order dated 9th June, 2020 passed bylearned Single Bench.

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the judgmentdated 9th June, 2020 passed in Writ-A No. 4090 of 2020. By theorder aforesaid, learned Single Bench while disposing of thewrit petition directed the respondents to consider case of therespondent-petitioner for appointment to the post of Constableas a person belonging to Other Backward Class.

In brief,factual matrix of the case is that the respondentsinvited applications from suitable candidates to be consideredfor appointment as Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police. The lastdate for submitting application forms was 8th December, 2018.In the advertisement inviting applications, it was made clearthat the incumbents claiming consideration against thevacancies reserved for Other Backward Class, must submit aCaste/Class certificate issued by the authority competentsubsequent to 1st April, 2018 but prior to the last date forsubmitting the application forms i.e. 8th December, 2018. Therespondent-petitioner submitted three certificates and those were dated 5th February, 2018, 29th March, 2016 and 15thDecember, 2018 which was not as per the instructions given inthe advertisement inviting applications. The respondent-petitioner, however, was permitted to face the process ofselection and was allowed to participate in the physical testalso. At this stage while verifying the documents, noticing thefact that Other Backward Class certificates submitted by therespondent-petitioner were not issued within the datesprescribed, his candidature was cancelled. Aggrieved by thesame, the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ thatcame to be decided on 9th June, 2020 with a direction toconsider candidature of the respondent-petitioner forappointment as Constable by treating him as a member of OtherBackward Class.

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned Standing Counselis that the Single Bench failed to appreciate that the certificatessubmitted by the respondent-petitioner were not in terms of theadvertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidatesto be considered for appointment and natural consequence ofthat was nothing but rejection of candidature of the respondent-petitioner from consideration.Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

It is not in dispute that as per the advertisement the OtherBackward Class certificate should have been issued by theauthority competent within the period from 1st April, 2018 to8th December, 2018, but the admitted fact is that therespondent-petitioner was allowed to participate in the processof selection after qualifying the written test. It is only at the lastleg his candidature was rejected while examining thetestimonials submitted. It is also not in dispute that thedocuments were examined physically by the authoritiesconcerned. The appellants-respondents once permitted the

respondent-petitioner to participate in the written test and whenthey have examined the testimonials physically, no adverseeffect was going to be caused to the process of selection byaccepting the certificates submitted by the respondent-petitioner. It is not the case of the appellants-respondents thatthe respondent-petitioner is not a member of Other BackwardClass or the certificate issued subsequent to 8th December,2018 was going to cause any hardship or was causingdisturbance to the process of selection. Learned Single Benchexercised its jurisdiction by taking into consideration all thecircumstances and with a view to balance the equity, as such thejudgment, in the circumstances noticed above, does not warrantany interference in the appellate jurisdiction. The appeal henceis dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.12.2020VMA

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)