Pratibha Pandey vs State of U.P. and Others

Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance that her claim for B.T.C. Training Course, 2014 is not being considered on the ground that the petitioner has applied for the same on 9.9.2015.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the advertisement, the last date of filling the application form for B.T.C. Training Course, 2014 was 12.8.2015. The petitioner did not apply thinking that the said Training Course is for 2014 and all those candidates, who were eligible in 2014 could only apply. Thereafter, it appears that a corrigendum was issued on 9.9.2015 stating therein that such Graduates, who have done their graduation in 2015 are also eligible. Immediately after issuance of the aforesaid corrigendum, the petitioner applied on 9.9.2015, but her claim is not being considered.

It is to be noted that if the Graduates of 2015 were also eligible for being considered for B.T.C. Training Course, 2014 then the said fact ought to have been mentioned in the advertisement but by corrigendum the same has been incorporated on 9.9.2015 which is after the last date of submission of form, i.e., 12.8.2015, therefore, only on this ground the petitioner''s candidature cannot be nonsuited. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner, if the petitioner has filled her form on 9.9.2015 and she is otherwise eligible for selection of B.T.C. Training Course-2014 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.