Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Praveen Vasistha And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 19803 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7661 (25 April 2007)


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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19803   OF   2007

Praveen Vasistha & others  .................................................    Petitioners


State of Uttar Pradesh & others ........................................  Respondents


Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.  19241   of  2007

S.Y.H.Jafari & others  ..........................................................    Petitioners


U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others        ................          Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in writ petition  No. 19241 of 2007, Sri Ashok Khare,  Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in writ petition  No. 19803 of 2007 and Sri R. D. Khare appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions.

By these two writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 5.4.2007 by which the petitioners have been called to show cause as to why they should not be reverted from the post Assistant Accountant.  The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 2.2.2007 by which a decision was taken to cancel the entire examination of the  Assistant Accountant held on 20.6.2004.   Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners appeared in the departmental examination of Assistant Accountant  and after being found successful were  promoted in the year 2004 and are working on the said promoted post.  On certain complaints which were field, a report has been submitted on which report a decision was  taken to cancel the entire examination dated 20.6.2004 in consequence of which notice was issued to the petitioners to show cause. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that reasons given in the order dated 2.2.2007 for cancelling the examination, are based on surmises and conjectures  and the mere fact that certain irregularities were found cannot be  made basis  for cancelling the entire examination.  The decision could have been  taken on the examination of individual cases.  Sri R. D. Khare appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions has filed the copy of  the report along with the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition  No. 19241 of 2007, which is the basis for passing the order cancelling the entire examination.  From perusal of the said report it is clear that following reasons  have been recorded by the Committee for cancelling the examination.  (i) sealed key of the Bank was not made available; (ii)  On the last page of the answer sheet  there is no signature of any officer  nor the blank pages have been cut;   (iii) OMR sheet does not contain the marks in question paper No.2. One question shall be of howmuch maximum marks has not been indicated.  The marks which have been sought to be taken from the tabulated sheet are probably not  in accordance with  the marks obtained in the answer book. (iv) Proper evaluation of the answer book  of  objective questions  have not  been made. Some  answers  in the subjective questions appears to have been subsequently solved.  (v) reply of the letter dated 15.9.2005 of the Committee has not been given.

A perusal of the above  reasons indicate that certain inferences were drawn on the basis of only probability. In the event certain answer books gave impression that certain questions were solved subsequently those  individuals  could have been  proceeded with after notice.  No such  flaw in the process have been pointed out on which the entire selection could have been cancelled without opportunity to the selected candidates who are working on promoted post for the last two years.  The giving of notice on 5.4.2007 to show cause as to why the petitioners be not reverted is only an eye-wash since the decision has already been taken to cancel the entire examination by the order dated 2.2.2007.  Learned counsel for the respondents  submitted that  it was not necessary  to issue any show cause notice to the petitioners although the show cause notice dated  5.4.2007 has been issued by the authorities asking the petitioner to show cause. It is not open for the petitioner to contend  that it was not necessary to issue show cause notice.  

In the writ petition  No. 19803 of 2007 learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Roll number  of none of the petitioners were mentioned in the entire report.  

In view of the facts of the present case  and the submissions  of counsel for the parties as noted above, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of interim relief.   In writ petition  No. 19803 of 2007 the respondents are allowed two weeks time to file counter affidavit.  Rejoinder affidavit may be field within one week thereafter.   In writ petition No. 19241 of 2007 the petitioners may file rejoinder affidavit  by the next date.  List after three weeks.  In the mean time the impugned order dated 2.2.2007 as well as the notice dated 5.4.2007 shall remain stayed.




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


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 |

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