MAHIMA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Order 47 Rule 5 of the CPC read with Chapter-V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The judgment sought to be reviewed has been passed in Special Appeal No. 734 of 2010 by Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, Abhinava Upadhya,JJ. Justice R.K.Agrawal is no longer a Judge of this Court and, therefore, the matter was placed before us as one of us (Justice Abhinava Upadhya) was also a Member of the earlier Division Bench. The review of the judgment dated 17.5.2010 has been sought on the ground that the said judgment was pronounced relying upon the information from the State authorities which were incorrect and the same came to the light only after judgment was pronounced. Hence the review application.

(2.) The brief facts are, that the applicant pursuant to an advertisement had applied for Special BTC Training Course of 2008. The applicant applied in prescribed proforma, filling up the form and annexing therewith all the certificates regarding educational qualification. When she did not get any call letter for appearing in the test, she filed Writ Petition No. 8710 of 2010. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 18.2.2010 directing the authorities to consider her claim. The claim of the applicant was rejected by order dated 31.3.2010 by the concerned authorities on the ground that the marks of B.Ed. mentioned in the form did not tally with the marks mentioned in the mark sheet of B.Ed. annexed with the form.

(3.) The applicant then filed another writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23075 of 2010. Vide judgment dated 27.4.2010 the same was dismissed. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the orders of the authorities rejecting the claim of applicant is neither erroneous nor illegal, as the same has been passed considering the conditions laid down in the advertisement, which were not fulfilled by the applicant. One of the condition in the form was that true and correct marks obtained in each degree should be filled in the form and if the marks do not tally with the original document, the form would be rejected out rightly. Apparently the applicant had committed a mistake while filling up the form in writing lesser marks for her B.Ed. Degree, that is to say, she filled up 721 marks obtained in B.Ed. whereas the actual marks of the applicant were more, that is to say 726 marks. Obviously the mistake was apparent and the form was rejected. The applicant attributes this mistake to 'human error' for which it was claimed that she could not be penalized on the principle "to error is human".