ARTI VERMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant made an on-line application for engagement as Shiksha Anudeshak (Arts) for 2012-13 on contract basis. In the application, the appellant claimed to have belonged to the Freedom Fighters' category, which was admittedly not the category to which the appellant could have claimed. The name of the appellant was shown in the select list of candidates belonging to the Freedom Fighters' Category. The Secretary to the State Government rejected the representation filed by the appellant for correcting the error in the on line application. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order passed by the Secretary noting that under the declaration given by the appellant while filling up the application, it was stated that the candidature could be rejected if any discrepancy was found. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Ram Manohar Yadav v. State of U.P. and three others, (Special Appeal-834 of 2013). In the judgment of the Division Bench in Ram Manohar Yadav it was observed that where an applicant has shown his incompetence or negligence in not even correctly filling up a simple on line application form for employment, interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted.

(2.) However, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench in Puspraj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (Special Appeal-75 of 2013). That is a case where the appellant had wrongly described himself as a female candidate. On these facts, the Division Bench accepted the contention that human error had caused an incorrect on line entry, since there was no reason for the appellant to make such a declaration and that he did not stand to gain anything by making such an incorrect entry. In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed. Moreover, in the present case, the appointment was of a contractual nature for a period of eleven months. Hence, considering the matter from any perspective, the learned Single Judge was not in error in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.