AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Chaudhary, J
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel respondent no.3 and Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of order dated 13.04.2021 passed by respondent no.4.
Submission of counsel for petitioner is that in her B.Ed. exam, petitioner was granted 359 marks out of 600 and was offered one grace marks and while submitting her application form, she added both the marks and submitted her marks as 360 out of 600 as is apparent from the mark-sheet of the petitioner. On the basis of the same, selection of the petitioner is rejected by the respondents claiming that petitioner has manipulated the documents. Submission of counsel for petitioner is that no benefit would available to the petitioner by adding one mark only and even her ranking does not change. Further, submission is that the same was done by the petitioner in a bona fide manner. She got 359 marks out of 600 and 1 mark as grace mark which ought to have been clubbed by the University itself. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court dated 29.06.2021 passed in Writ Petition(s) Civil) No(s). 378 of 2021; 'Rahul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
In Rahul Kumar case (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the Government Circular dated 05.03.2013 issued by the State Government. The concluding lines of said government circular provides:-
"Where a candidate, without any documentary basis, has mentioned more marks than what he has obtained or has mentioned less maximum marks than what the actual was, his/her selection/candidature shall be cancelled."
After quoting the government circular, in paragraph-7, the Supreme Court held:-
"We need not consider individual fact situation as the reading of the G.O. and the Circular as stated above is quite clear that wherever a candidate had put himself in a disadvantaged position as stated above, his candidature shall not be cancelled but will be reckoned with such disadvantage as projected; but if the candidate had projected an advantaged position which was beyond his rightful due or entitlement, his candidature will stand cancelled."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that marks of the petitioner is 360 on the basis of documentary evidence i.e. her mark-sheet.
The same is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents who submits that the matter is squarely covered by paragraph-7 of the judgment passed in Rahul Kumar case (supra).
Paragraph-7 of Rahul Kumar case (supra) is required to be read along with the Government Circular dated 05.03.2013 which specifically provides that in case a candidate has submitted his/her marks on the basis of documentary evidence, the benefit of the same is required to be given to the petitioner. In this particular case, it is apparent that the petitioner has only added her entire marks given in the mark-sheet and same is a bona fide act based on documents.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 13.04.2021 cannot stand and the same is set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to pass consequential orders within one month from today.