SHIV UPENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vijay Sinha for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) IN pursuance of an advertisement dated 15 -6 -1999 for selections to the post of Sub -Inspectors/Platoon Commanders in U.P. Police and P.A.C. respectively, petitioners applied for the post of Sub -Inspector. They succeeded in preliminary examination held on 6 -2 -2000, and also in physical test. In the main written examination held on 29 -4 -2001, they were not found successful and their roll numbers were not reflected for being called for interview in the final result published on 2 -6 -2001. Aggrieved, they have filed these writ petitions.

(3.) SELF assessment cannot be a ground to reopen or re -examine the answer books in selections to public services. There is no basis for foundation for the allegations of manipulations in the writ petitions. The petitioners have not disclosed the source of their knowledge with regard to supposition of the irregularities in valuation of their answer books. They appeared in the examination and succeeded in preliminary test and physical examination. It is only when they were eliminated after main written examination, that they have challenged the process. The fixation of maximum qualifying marks for main written examination was known to them and that having appeared in the examination, they cannot be permitted to challenge the same. In Union of India and another v. V.N. Chandra Shekharan and others 1998 (1) JCLR 818 (SC): (1998) S.C.C. 694; Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp. S.C.C. 284; Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla and others, (2002) 6 S.C.C. 127, it was held that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest, and was, subsequently, found not to be successful cannot be allowed to question the process and such pleas should not be entertained, at his instance. In the matters of competitive examination of public services, a very heavy burden lies upon the candidate to assail the fairness in the process, which has not been discharged. The fact that petitioners have good academic record by itself is no ground to call for their answer books for re -evaluation. No other ground was pressed.