Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Pankaj Kumar – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6860 of 2021, SLP (Civil) No. 5006 of 2020
Decided On : 18-11-2021
Service Law – Appointment – Direct recruitment of Police Constables in Provincial Armed Constabulary (Male) – High Court has not granted relief to respondent by recording a finding with regard to non-compliance of any requirement envisaged under the Rule or procedure provided in advertisement calling for applications – Rule mentions that intimation is to be provided by postal communication or any other mode – In that view, there is no bar in intimating candidates through SMS, more particularly when large number of candidates had to appear in subsequent process and majority of candidates have appeared for document verification and physical fitness test pursuant to intimation by SMS – When a requirement is stated in application to provide mobile number, it is with a purpose to communicate and in instant case, appellants have sent SMS to the very number which had been furnished by appellant – Argument that one may not retain same number after lapse of long time would hold good even for address which is furnished for issue of postal communication – In a given case, person may not reside in same address which is furnished for communication as it existed when application is made – In such circumstance, it is for candidate to intimate any change to authorities, since such change would be within knowledge of candidate and it is in his or her own interest such intimation is to be made – When there can be no dispute that respondent was in possession of same mobile connection detail of which was furnished in application and SMS had been sent to respondent, respondent having not acted on same cannot at his own convenience make request to be permitted to participate in selection process which has already concluded, not having utilized opportunity which was available to him – It was casual attitude of respondent which had brought about the situation – Respondent was not vigilant at earliest point in time but it is only after such consideration had been made by High Court and an opportunity was granted to certain other persons, respondent had chosen to file writ petition – Since, sufficient time has elapsed thereafter it would not be appropriate to make exception in case of respondent at this stage as otherwise trickle would continue – Impugned orders set aside. [Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constable Rules, 2008] (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Special Appeal Defective No. 366/2019. Through the said order Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed Special Appeal, thereby upholding the judgment and order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.693 (S/S) of 2019.
Findings of Court:
Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in their conclusion. The order dated 12.03.2019 passed by Single Judge in W.P No.693 (SS) of 2019 and the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.366 of 2019 by the Division Bench are set aside. Consequently, the Writ petition No.693 (SS) of 2019 stands dismissed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Special Appeal Defective No. 366/2019. Through the said order the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special Appeal, thereby upholding the judgment and order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 693 (S/S) of 2019, titled Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P and Others.
2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal is that the appellants had published an advertisement in the year 2015 to recruit Police Constables to the Provincial Armed Constabulary (Male) by direct recruitment. The respondent herein was one of the candidates who had responded to the said advertisement and submitted his application. Pursuant thereto, the admit card was issued to the respondent and the initial fitness examination was held. In order to complete the process of selection, the documents were to be verified and the candidates were to be subjected to physical fitness test which was to be made subsequently as the next stage of recruitment process. The issue presently is with regard to the respondent being unable to appear for the physical fitness test and the verification of documents which he alleges is for want of written communication.
3. According to the appellants, the candidates who were required to appear for the physical fitness test and document verification were intimated by issuing SMS over the mobile phone, the number of which had been furnished in the application. Several other candidates who had received such SMS had appeared and taken part in the process of document verification and the physical fitness test. The respondent who had not appeared, made out a grievance about appellants not intimating the respondent through post. In that light, the respondent filed the writ petition bearing S.S. No. 693 of 2019 seeking that the appellants herein be directed to complete the document verification and the physical fitness test of the respondent pertaining to his height, weight and chest measurement and to declare the result after completing the process. The case put forth was that the appellants had not adhered to the requirement contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constable Rules, 2008. According to the respondent, as per rule, a call letter was required to be issued. Since, such call letter has not been issued to the respondent he was unable to take part in the process of document verification and physical fitness test. The Learned Single Judge though did not record a finding with regard to there being violation or noncompliance of any rule, had arrived at the conclusion that there was inadvertence on part of the respondent since an applicant would not have deliberately not participated in the process of recruitment. In that circumstance, as a matter of equitable consideration, the Learned Single Judge had directed the appellants to permit the petitioner to appear for the document verification and physical fitness test for the post of Constable in pursuance to the recruitment advertised in the year 2015.
4. The appellants herein, claiming to be aggrieved by such direction issued by the Learned Single Judge filed an intra court appeal in Special Appeal No. 366/2019 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench having extracted the portion of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge wherein an equitable consideration was made, has further indicated that there is no dispute to the fact that except for the SMS sent to the respondent no other mode of information was sent and in that view the Division Bench approved the direction issued by the Learned Single Judge whereby an opportunity has been granted to the respondent to appear for the document verification and physical fitness test. It is in that view, the appeal was dismissed.
5. Mr. Pradeep Misra
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
