Back
2022 Supreme(All) 174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ABDUL MOIN, J.
Dr. Imtiyaz Ahmad And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Chikitsa Shiksha Ayush (Unani) Lko. And Another - Respondents
Writ - A No. 349 of 2022
Decided On : 24-01-2022
For the Petitioner: Ram Raj, Hanumant Lal Srivastava, Rishabh Raj.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ashok Shukla.
Rejected candidates are not entitled to file an appeal after failing to qualify in the examination, and a wrong concession of law would not be binding.
Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission - Medical Officer - Rules 2011 - The judgment discusses the interpretation of Rule 31 of the Rules 2011, which pertains to the rejection of candidates' applications and their right to file an appeal. The court analyzes the provisions of the Rules 2011 and concludes that the rejected candidates are not entitled to file an appeal after failing to qualify in the examination. The court also highlights the importance of reading the rule in its entirety and rejects the petitioners' interpretation of Rule 31(v). The court emphasizes that a wrong concession of law would not be binding, citing relevant case laws.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners appeared in the screening examination for the post of Medical Officer and were notified that their marks were less than the cut off for the interview. They sought relief based on Rule 31 of the Rules 2011, arguing that they should have been individually informed about the rejection of their applications and allowed to file an appeal to appear in the interview.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to file an appeal after failing to qualify in the examination, as per the interpretation of Rule 31 of the Rules 2011. The court also emphasized that a wrong concession of law would not be binding.
Issues: Interpretation of Rule 31 of the Rules 2011, entitlement of rejected candidates to file an appeal, and the binding nature of a wrong concession of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejected candidates are not entitled to file an appeal after failing to qualify in the examination, and a wrong concession of law would not be binding.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief(s) :
“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2/Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to permit the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Medical Officer, S-11/07 in Government Unani Medical Colleges of U.P. (General Recruitment), which is slated for 24.01.2022 and 25.01.2022.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the opposite parties from detaining/debarring the petitioners from appearing in the interview for the post of Medical Officer, S-11/07 in Government Unani Medical Colleges of U.P. (General recruitment), scheduled for 24.01.2022 and 25.01.2022, without following the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011.”
3. The case set forth by the petitioners is that an advertisement had been issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) inviting applications for various posts including the post of Medical Officer in Government Unani Medical Colleges of the State. A copy of the advertisement is annexure 3 to the petition. The selection required a two stage process namely a written examination for the purpose of screening followed by an interview of the eligible candidates. The petitioners appeared in the screening examination and claim to have qualified the same. Thereafter the commission issued a notice dated 12.10.2021, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition whereby the candidates who had qualified in the screening examination were to be called for interview. It was specifically provided in the said notice that the candidates shall be called for an interview on the basis of the marks obtained in the screening examination.
4. The petitioners were sanguine in the belief that they would be called for interview which was scheduled to he held on 24.01.2022 and 25.01.2022 but the Commission issued a notice dated 17.01.2022, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition whereby the petitioners alongwith several other candidates were informed that the marks obtained by them in the screening examination were less than the cut off marks in their category. It is contended that as the roll numbers of the petitioners figure in the said notice dated 17.01.2022 whereby it has been contended that the cut off marks are less in their category as such they would not be called for interview scheduled on 24.01.2022 and 25.01.2022 and hence the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Reliance has been placed on the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred as Rules 2011) a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, more particularly on Rule 31 of the Rules 2011 to contend that the petitioners should have been informed individually about the rejection of the application for being called in the said interview. This has not been done by the Commission. It is contended that against the order rejecting the applications of the petitioners the petitioners have remedy of filing an appeal before the date of the interview and the commission should allow the petitioners to appear in the interview during the pendency of the appeal.
6. Reliance in this regard has been placed on two judgments of this Court passed in Writ Petition no. 8548 (Service Single) of 2019 in re: Dr. Atiya Khan Vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 03.04.2019 and Writ Petition no. 29326 (Service Single) of 2021 in re: Dr. Mohd. Khursheed Alam Vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 14.12.2021, copies of which are cumulatively annexed as annexure 13 to the petition to contend that Rule 31 of Rules 2011 has been interpreted by this Court and it has been held on the basis of concession given by the learned counsel f
