SHARDA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.2.2008 communicated to him by the Special Secretary, Irrigation Department-6, Government of U.P., on behalf of the Governor of U.P. in consultation with the U.P. Public Service Commission reverting him to one stage lower than the post held by him after holding a departmental enquiry.

(2.) The Petitioner was at the relevant time from 22.5.2003 to 9.5.2005, serving as Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Siddharthnagar. He was appointed as Chairman of the Selection Committee for selections to the posts of Nalkoop Mistris. A large number of irregularities were reported in the selections on which a charge sheet was served upon the Petitioner alleging that he had orally dictated the marks awarded to the candidates in respect of their educational qualifications and for certificates of sports, prohibited by Rule 5 (4)(c) of the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C Posts (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002. He thus against the provisions in the Rules had knowledge of the marks awarded to the candidates. He was also charged with preparing the proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee on 10.9.2004 and 11.9.2004 in which 111 candidates of Other Backward Classes; 84 of Scheduled Castes, and 77 of Scheduled Tribes were found to be eligible, whereas in the broad sheet prepared by them these persons were shown as 111 for OBC; 80 for SC and 74 for ST. He was also charged with making incorrect entries in the broad sheet allowing certain candidates to participate in the interviews. These mistakes were detailed in the charge sheet as follows:

(3.) The Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet stating that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule (5)(4) of the Rules of 2002 provide that at the time of interviews the Chairman and members of the Selection Committee will not be given information about the marks secured by the candidates. These provisions were strictly followed. In respect of the allegations constituting second charge, the Petitioner submitted that a number of candidates appearing in the selections belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were wrongly entered in the records on account of a typing mistake. Out of these 80 candidates in Scheduled Caste and 74 in Scheduled Tribe, as against 84 and 77. These wrong entries, however, did not affect the selections at all. On the third allegation with regard to the entries of the marks and experience, of the five candidates named as above, the Petitioner submitted that Shri Diwakar Prasad Srivastava and Shri Vivek Srivastava had submitted the experience certificates. The experience of the second candidate has not been counted in preparing the broad sheet. In respect of Shri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, the year, name of the examination and the number was given in the application. The experience certificate in respect of Shri Virendra Singh was annexed to his application. The reference of second candidate was correctly dictated but was wrongly typed. In respect of Shri Ambrish Chandra Srivastava, he had enclosed two experience certificates totalling experience of five years and two months. There was thus no mistake in the broad sheet except in respect of Shri Virendra Singh. Shri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Shri Virendra Singh and Shri Ambrish Chandra Srivastava were not selected and thus the mistake, if any, in respect of Shri Virendra Singh did not result into any benefit to him.