IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJIT KUMAR, J.
Samrah Ahmad – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 4453, 4531, 4572, 4578, 4631, 5713, 5912, 6117, 7150, 7474, 7893, 8884, 9333, 10075, 10447, 11201, 11662, 11957 of 2020, Writ (A) Nos. 7076, 7105, 8744, 8747, 8936, 9899, 10440, 11919, 12010, 12501, 13212, 14566 of 2021, Writ (A) Nos. 7952, 17507 of 2022
Decided On : 04-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
AJIT KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Seemant Singh and Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava for petitioners, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anjali Goklani and Ms. Ananya Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent U.P. Jal Nigam, Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Amit Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) and Sri V.K. Rai and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Ms. Meha Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent M/s. Aptech Limited.
2. This bunch of petitions consists of above noted writ petitions that arise out of the same advertisements and selections qua posts of Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers (different trades) and Routine Grade Clerks of same department namely U.P. Jal Nigam and are, therefore, connected. Now this bunch of petitions is being heard and decided.
FACTS
3. The erstwhile U.P. Jal Nigam prior to its split into two corporations, namely, U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) and U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural) issued advertisements on 18th June, 2016, 28th October, 2016 and 29th November, 2016 inviting applications for making selection and appointments against 335 vacancies of Routine Grade Clerks (including stenographers), 853 vacancies of Junior Engineers in the break-up of 723 for Civil trade, 126 of Mechanical/Electrical trade and 122 vacancies of Assistant Engineers in the break-up 113 for Civil trade, 5 for Mechanical/Electrical trade and 4 Computer Science/Electronic Communication.
4. As against the posts of Assistant Engineers about 34128 candidates in different trades, 61,452 candidates for the posts of Junior Engineers (different trades) and 84,643 candidates against the post Routine Grade Clerk appeared in the Computer Based Test (CBT) that was held for the selection and appointment purposes.
5. The CBT for the post of Assistant Engineers was conducted on 16th December, 2016 in 2 shifts, one for Civil and one shift for other trades, whereas for the post of Junior Engineer, the CBT was held on 6th December, 2016 and 7th December, 2016 in 5 shifts and for the Routine Grade Clerk, the CBT was held from 5th August, 2016 to 7th August, 2016 inclusive.
6. Four set of question papers were prepared for the post of Assistant Engineer consisting of 80 questions each. For the post of Junior Engineers five set of question papers consisting of 80 questions each and for the Routine Grade Clerk nine question papers were prepared consisting of 80 questions each.
7. The CBT results were declared for the posts of Assistant Engineer on 17th December, 2016 for the post of Junior Engineer on 7th December, 2016 and for the Routine Grade Clerk on 9th August, 2016.
8. In the category of Assistant Engineers (Civil) 522 candidates, in the category of Mechanical 22 candidates and Computer Science/Electronic Communication 20 candidates were shown to have qualified in the CBT.
9. In respect of the Junior Engineers 3961 candidates qualified for civil trade, whereas 699 candidates qualified in the Mechanical/Electrical trade.
10. In the CBT conducted for Routine Grade Clerks and Stenographers in 2316 candidates were shown to have qualified and out of that only 718 candidates were successful in the typing test, who were ultimately interviewed.
11. In order to conduct interview the corporation proceeded to constitute Boards. 6 Interview Boards were constituted for Assistant Engineers. 10 Interview Boards were constituted for Junior Engineers and 6 Interview Boards were constituted for Routine Grade Clerks.
12. Interview for the post of Assistant Engineers in different trades were held on 30th December, 2016 and 31st December, 2016. For the posts of Junior Engineer in different trades were held from 19th December, 2016 to 7
Ranvijay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others
Sachin Kumar and others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and others
Sachin Kumar and others v. Delhi, Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and others
Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers
State of Chhatisgarh vs. Dhirojo Kumar Sengar
State of NCT Delhi and another v. Sanjeev @ Bittu
State of Rajasthan and others v. Heem Singh
State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Kalaimuni & Others
State of U.P. and others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others
Tata Chemicals Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar
Teri Oat Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
Union of India and Others vs. O. Chakradhar
Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey
Union of India v. G. Ganayutham
Union of India v. O. Chakradhar
Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh
V.C. Banaras Hindu University and Others v. Shrikant (2006) 11 SCC 42
Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhatisgarh
Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and others
B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P. (2002) 5 SCC 533
Badami (Deceased) by her L.R. vs. Bhali
Bank of India v. Vijay Transport and others (2000) 8 SCC 512
Gohil Deshraj Anubhai and Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India
High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. State of Punjab
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab
Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar
Indrapreet Khalon and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
Jogender Pal and others v. State of Punjab and others
Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana
Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702
Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner and others
Moni Shankar v. Union of India
Omkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India
Pramod Lahudas v. State of Maharashtra
Preet Singh Karola and others v. State of Punjab and others
Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. (2022) 12 SCC 200
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others
Ram Naresh Singh and others vs. State of U.P. 2018 (4) AWC 3521
The court emphasized that the integrity of public employment selections must be maintained, ruling that the failure to publish the master answer key and deletion of original data rendered the selecti....
The court ruled that the selection process for Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers was fraudulent, violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, and directed a fresh review based on actual ma....
(1) Appointment – Cancellation of entire selection due to mass irregularities is justified.(2) Principles of Natural Justice cannot be invoked to validate fraud that has occurred – These principles a....
Minor technical irregularities in recruitment exams, promptly rectified without systemic fraud or inability to segregate tainted/untainted candidates, do not vitiate entire selection process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.