ARCHANA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to present writ petition in brief is that petitioner applied for consideration of her candidature for Special B.T.C. Course 2004. Petitioner claims that she made declaration in her application form that she is from physically handicapped category candidate and at that point of time petitioner possessed certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer on 13.5.1999. Petitioner was called for counselling on 1.6.2004 and name of petitioner was shown at serial No. 16 in the aforementioned list. Final list was published on 15.7.2004 and therein name of petitioner was missing. Petitioner submits that she represented the matter before the authority concerned and when no action was taken then she preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45631 of 2004 (Smt. Archana Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors.). This Court on presentation of the aforementioned writ petition on 29.10.2004 disposed of the aforementioned writ petition asking the authority concerned i.e. Director, State Educational Research and Training Council, Lucknow to decide the claim of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court representation has been moved by the petitioner and alongwith representation petitioner has appended copy of Medical Certificate dated 27.8.2004. Thereafter petitioner was called for verification of original record. Thereafter, claim of the petitioner has been rejected on 31.12.2004 on the ground that last date for submission of application form of Special B.T.C. Course 2004 was 15.3.2004 and as certificate pertaining to the petitioner of being. Physically handicapped was issued on 27.8.2004 as such petitioner would not be treated as Physically Handicapped category and would be treated as General category. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that at the point of time when petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature she had filled up her form as Physically Handicapped category candidate and at that point of time petitioner was in possession of Physically Handicapped certificate dated 13.5.1999 and as said certificate was old one then she obtained new certificate dated 27.8.2004, as such certificate dated 27.8.2004 was nothing but reiteration of earlier status of the petitioner of being Physically Handicapped and thus, view which has been taken by respondents is unsustainable and as candidate with less merit have been selected and sent for training then petitioner is also entitled to be sent for training.

(3.) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature as Physically Handicapped category. At the point of time she had been in possession of certificate dated 13.5.1999 issued by Chief Medical Officer. This certificate is undisputedly much before 15.3.2004 and petitioner had obtained fresh certificate dated 27.8.2004 which had been produced. By means of the same no new fact has been sought to be brought on record rather the said certificate was reaffirmation of the fact mentioned in the old certificate that petitioner is candidate from Physically Handicapped category.