VINOD KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Present bunch of writ petition has been filed by the candidates who had been pursuing their B. T. C. Course 2001 questioning the validity of the decision taken by the State Government by means of communication dated 20-10-2005 passed by Secretary Basic Education cancelling the aforesaid examination of B. T. C. course 2001.

(2.) VIGILANCE report dated 23-7-2005 has also been questioned and further prayer has been made that petitioners' final result be declared and consequential benefit attached to the same be also extended.

(3.) THE two reports one submitted by Joint Director of Education, Sri R. P. Verma and other submitted by the vigilance department clearly indicate that the authorities who were entrusted with sacred public office in fact has misused the office in place of using it. In this background it has been asserted that there is no infirmity in the decision which has been taken and no interference be made by this Court. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been disputed and therein it has been asserted that at no point of time candidates who had accorded admission had even been informed that their admission was in any manner provisional or subject to any on going enquiry and to the contrary all the candidates were granted admission and they were pursuing their training course with no such likelihood of being thrown away from training. Grievance has also been raised qua the violation of natural justice. It has been asserted that corrigendum which was issued dispensing with requirement supplying of documents was a rightful decision taken by the authorities and said benefit was extended universally and no one was discriminated, in this background it has been suggested that decision for notifying the corrigendum in no manner affects the merit of the selection and adverse inferences drawn in the vigilance report and the counter-affidavit are wholly unwarranted. It has also been contended that no capital can be made out on account of non-availability of bank draft of various candidates and by means of the inquiry qua the said candidates rightful conclusion could have been arrived at. Qua inquiry conducted by Sri R. P. Verma it has been contended that he is much junior officer qua the Director State Council for Education Research and Training, Lucknow, thus, decision of authorizing him to conduct the inquiry was perverse and arbitrary. It has further been contended that report of Joint Director of Education dated 30-4-2004 has never recommended for cancellation of entire selections. Report of vigilance establishment dated 23-7-2005 has not been preceded by any proper enquiry and said report takes misconceived objections into account. It has also been contended that enquiry has been conducted with closed mind and does not refer to various facets of the selection peculiar to the selection in question. THE following factors have been alleged to have been ignored in the Vigilance Report : (1) THE applications were invited district wise and the preparation of the select list is also with reference to individual district. In such view of the matter the select list pertaining to individual district required individual examination and in the absence of such examination the select list or a selection could not be set aside. (2) That the vigilance establishment in submitting the report has failed to appreciate the form of the answer sheets on account of which any overwriting or cutting committed subsequently can be detected to be a subsequent interpolation. This is on account of the fact that the examination compromised of objecting type questions with multiple choice answers bearing numbers ranging from 1 to 4. THE answer sheets comprised of cage in which in each question the number of the correct answering from amongst the multiple choice had to be specified. For example either one or two or three or four, in the last column of the caging provided for purposes of answering both horizontally as also vertically the addition of the numerical mentioned against each has to be aggregated and specified. THEre also existed a further requirement of the aggregate of the horizontal and vertical lines being specified at the end of the answer sheet. In view of the aforesaid precautions any subsequent interpolations cutting/overwriting in the answer sheet is early detectable as the same would totally alter the aggregate specified at the end of the vertical or horizontal column or at the end of the answer sheet. (3) That the vigilance establishment has failed to notice that each of the selected candidates was required to produce all his original certificates for comparison with the details mentioned in the computerized select list as also for verification of such testimonials. On the basis of such original certificates the requisite verification of the entries pertaining to weightage was conducted before admitting a student at the respect District Institute of Education and Training. Further custody of all original certificate was to retain by the Principal of the college and continued to be retained during the currency of the entire course. During this period verification of the authenticity of the certificate was also obtained from the concerned institutions from which the same had been issued. On account of the procedure so adopted the various discrepancies highlighted in the vigilance establishment on account of non-obtaining of the original certificate alongwith application form, some discrepancy existing in the weightage filled up in the data sheet, the non-availability of the data sheet and/or application forms of loose any significance. It is further necessary to state that there existed a large number of such cases at each institute in which even though a candidate figured in the select list but he was denied admission either on account of any discrepancy in his original certificate, or the entries in the data sheet not co- relating with the original certificates as also any discrepancy detected with regard to the authenticity of the certificates. Two such examples are at Sarojbala Roll No. 609064 and Jyoti Dubur both of Agra having been denied admission at the state of verification. THEre also exist several such cases in which the candidature itself has been subsequently cancelled after admission on account of adverse report declining verification of the original certificate having been received. (4) That the vigilance report fails to advert to the question of actual admissions. All enquiry and report is limited to the stage of preparation of the select list. No enquiry has been conducted with regard to actual admissions. THE report takes objection against inclusion of several candidates in the select list who have in fact never been admitted. For example on page 37 of the report reference has been made to a candidate of Agra namely Sarojbala with Roll No. 609064 who has in fact never been admitted. Similarly on page 39 reference exists with regard to Devendra Kumar with Roll No. 613476 and Varun Kumar with Roll No. 620807 both candidates of Mainpuri. In fact Varun Kumar was never admitted while the admission of Devendra Kumar was cancelled by the Principal himself. Further in the report at the end there exists a list from amongst 110 candidates pointing out discrepancies with regard to them. Out of the aforesaid the candidates with Roll Nos. 267939 and 270492 (both the District Mirzapur) candidates with Roll Nos. 003654, 511224, 516331 and 516410 (all of District Gorakhpur); candidates with Roll No. 358936 (District Gonda), 404651 (District Meerut) 375732 (District Bahraich); 531640 (District Deoria); 219081 (District Baduan); 296609 (District Bhadohi); 236646 and 337194 (District Meerut); 455520 and 488888, 489219, 292455, 494510 (all District Jaunpur) and 375732 and 432516 (both District Bulandshahar) do not stand included either in the select list or the waiting list nor anyone of these candidates have been granted admission. 0 (5) THE objections with regard to candidates considered provisionally is misconceived. THE candidates issued provisional admit cards were governed by the letter of the Registrar dated 12-1-2002 (Annexure 5 to the counter-affidavit ). Such candidates were allotted Roll Nos. separately, and their answer sheets were packed separately and separately evaluated. In view of this the entire selection cannot be stood vitiated on any such ground. (6) THE answer sheets of 4768 selected candidates are available even according to the vigilance report. (page 16 of the report) (7) Some candidates against which objections are taken in the vigilance report have been admitted under Court orders. Attention is drawn to the case of Anita Verma Roll No. 290753 District Bhadohi who has been admitted in pursuance to order dated 16-4-2004 passed in writ petition No. 979 (M/s) of 2004. (8) THE decision fails to take into account the fact that each of the selected candidates has materially altered his position by wasting several years of his life in pursuing the B. T. C. Training course on account of which the respondents were stopped from taking a decision to cancel the selection. (9) THE decision fails to take into account the fact that during the period the petitioners have been pursuing the B. T. C. Training Course the State Government formulated a scheme known as Special B. T. C. Training Course and admission was granted thereto to a large number of candidates on the basis of academic qualifications without holding any written examination or interview. Such candidates were imparted instructions of studies in theory for three months and in practical for three months. No endeavour has been made for examining the candidates admitted to B. T. C. Training Course 2001 with reference to the cut of marks specified for admission in Special B. T. C. Training Course for different categories.