RAJENDRA SINGH BORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) Rajendra Singh Bora - the employee challenges a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, passed in Writ A No. 20783 of 2013 on 11/4/2018 whereby he had requested the Court to issue a mandamus to the States of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, thereby effecting his change of cadre from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand, on account of the fact that when he appeared for the Combined Lower Subordinate Service Examinations in 1995, he had opted for 'hill region ' posting, which was rejected.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant appeared for and cleared the competitive exam mentioned above, conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow, with what could be considered good marks i.e., 672 in total out of 900. The mark-sheet reflecting the said result as obtained is Annexure- P-3. While opting for, Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools, his preference was the 'hill area of Uttar Pradesh '. Despite such a situation, the appellant was not appointed for the reason that he only submitted his B.Ed (Bachelor of Education marksheet) at the time of interview and not with the application form. Naturally, those below him in the merit list were appointed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 16613 of 1997 which came to be allowed on 13/2/2004. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in allowing this petition was that Condition No. 7 of the Advertisement, pursuant to which the appellant applied for the position stated that candidates applying for the said position should annex the B.Ed marksheets, but it did not say that those applications which does not annex the same, will be rejected. Moreover, it was noted that the production of marksheets at the time of interview is an admitted fact. Given the remote area from where the appellant hailed, the Court observed that a hypertechnical view should not be adopted and as such allowed the appellant to be appointed from the same date as the other candidates, along with consequential benefits except for arrears and salary.