Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIKAS KUMAR PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRINCIPAL SECY. (HOME) & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vikas Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. (Home) & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 14184 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 8271 (24 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.20

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.14184 OF 2002

Vikas Kumar Pandey

Versus

State of U.P. & others

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order-dated 16.3.2002 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) Headquarters, Allahabad, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Further prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus commending the respondents to treat the candidature of the petitioner under Freedom Fighter category.

An advertisement was made in the newspaper on 4.5.1999 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the purpose of being selected as Sub-Inspectors of Police and Platoon Commanders in PAC. The total number of vacancies was advertised which were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. 1231Male Sub-Inspectors, 148 Female Sub-Inspectors and 255 Platoon Commanders in PAC. In terms of the Government Order dated 15.1.1983  2% reservation has been provided to the wards of the Freedom Fighter. The petitioner being a candidate under the aforesaid category has submitted an application annexing a copy of the entitlement under 2% quota as a Freedom Fighter Candidate. The result was declared in 2000 and only 1452 candidates have qualified in the physical test. They were entitled to appear in the main test and the petitioner was one of them and appeared in the main examination, which was held on 24.9.2001. The result of the final examination was declared on 31.5.2001 and a list of successful candidates comprised of 1178 was published and the name of the petitioner also found place and the petitioner was directed to appear in the interview. It took place on 18.6.2001 and the original documents were asked to be produced before the Interview Board. After the interview the result was declared but the petitioner was not given the benefit of Freedom of Fighter and out of 27 vacancies which were reserved for Freedom Fighter category only one vacancy was filled amongst the Freedom Fighter category.

The petitioner has not been given the benefit of category of Freedom Fighter though the petitioner has been treated on the basis of the certificate submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner comes in the category of Freedom Fighter. If the petitioner would have been given the benefit of Freedom Fighter, the petitioner could have been accorded the placement of Sub-Inspector Police but the said benefit was not given to the petitioner, as such, the petitioner was selected as Platoon Commander in PAC. The reason for not giving the benefit of the said category was only that the petitioner has not submitted the original or attested copy of the certificate, which was issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that when the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid fact, the petitioner filed the representation before the authorities concerned stating therein that all the relevant documents including the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner treating the petitioner to be dependent of Freedom  Fighter was annexed, as such the petitioner was entitled to get the appointment of Sub-Inspector Police according to the advertisement and category but the petitioner has been treated only a general candidate and consideration of the case of the petitioner was only to this effect that the petitioner has not submitted the original and attested copy of the said certificate. But as respondents have not taken any action on the report filed by the petitioner as such the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court namely 43355 of 2001which was decided on 3.1.2002 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that on the basis of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected- vide its judgment and order dated 16.3.2002, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

Sri Vikash Budhwar learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, treating the petitioner as a dependent of Freedom Fighter is based on an irrelevant consideration by the respondents. This cannot be a ground for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that as the original copy of the certificate and attested copy have not been filed and unattested copy has been filed, therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered under the aforesaid category. If there was any doubt in the mind of the respondent-authorities they should have directed the petitioner to produce the original certificate or direct the petitioner to submit the attested copy of the said certificate. It is not the case of the respondents that the unattested copy of the certificate which was produced by the petitioner was not a genuine document.  Impliedly the respondents have admitted that the certificate was genuine but as the original copy issued and attested copy has not been filed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit. The petitioner submits that this cannot be a ground for rejection of the benefit to the petitioner in service. In such a situation the petitioner submits that the order Annexure-6 to the writ petition is liable to be quashed.

Notices were issued and the counter affidavit has been filed. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has admitted this fact that as the petitioner has not filed the original copy of the certificate of the Freedom Fighter and as the petitioner has submitted the unattested copy of the said certificate, as such he was not entitled to the benefit. The contention raised in para 9 of the counter affidavit is being reproduced below:

�?1& ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj& 13 esa vafdr ;kph dk dFku vlR; gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj ugha gSA ;kph dks esfjV ds vuqlkj IykVwu dek.Mj ds in ij tks p;u fd;k x;k gS og fu;ekuqdwy gSA ;kph }kjk vius vkosnu i= ds lkFk Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ds vkfJr gksus dk ewy izek.k i= ;k mldh lR;kfir Nk;k izfr layXu ugha fd;k Fkk vkSj u gh lk{kkRdkj ds le; cksMZ ds le{k ewy izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlds dkj.k mls lkekU; tkfr dh dksfV esa j[kk x;k tks fu;ekuqdwy gSA�?

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel and have also perused the record. From the record it is clear that a certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner is a dependant of Freedom Fighter. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the advertisement, there was 2% reservation for the dependant of the Freedom Fighter. It is also clear from the record that the petitioner has submitted the certificate and only the original and attested copy has not been filed. It is not the case of the respondents that unattested copy submitted by the petitioner is not genuine. If there was any doubt in the mind of the respondents, they should have directed the petitioner to submit the original copy of the certificate or to submit attested copy of the certificate. The benefit for which the petitioner was entitled according to the said certificate cannot be refused on the ground that the original  copy and attested copies have not been submitted. If the certificate was genuine in the opinion of the respondents, it was necessary for the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner and the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the dependent of Freedom Fighter according to the G.O. and according to the nature of the advertisement. By not giving the said benefit on the reasons given in the impugned order in my opinion, this is an action of the respondents, which can be treated to be an arbitrary without any reason as such cannot sustain.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the order dated 16.3.2002,Annexure-6 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the aforesaid category and if the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of dependent of Freedom Fighter according to law, the same may be given to the petitioner. No order as to costs.

24.4.2006

V.Sri/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.