NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner who is working as a constable in PAC has challenged the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3 cancelling his candidature in the Departmental/Ranker Promotion Examination.

(3.) Facts are that petitioner is working as constable in PAC, Uttar Pradesh. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the department for filling up posts of Sub Inspector, petitioner was also an applicant and appeared in the written examination held on 13.3.2011 and was allotted roll no. 26032012. Petitioner claims that he qualified the written examination as well as physical test and his name finds place in the list of the successful candidate published on the website and accordingly he was sent for training in Police Training College, Unnao on 21.8.2012. However, just after fifteen days of training, he received an order dated 24.8.2012 cancelling his candidature in the said examination on the allegation that he has mentioned his name in 'Part-B' of the OMR sheet which was in violation of Clause-15 of the instruction.