Anuj Pandey vs District Judge, Mainpuri & others

D.P. Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This petition relates to recruitment and appointment as Class III employees in the District Judgeship of Mainpuri.

Pleadings have been exchanged and the substantial facts and the issue of law involved are identical and as such the petitions are being disposed off by this order.

For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, Writ Petition No. 35563 of 2002 is taken to be the leading petition.

In pursuance of an advertisement dated 6.7.2001 inviting applications for filling up 14 vacancies of Clerk in the Judgeship at Mainpuri, all the petitioners applied. After following the procedure prescribed under U.P. Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of Subordinate Offices in U.P. Rules 1950 and U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules 1947 and the circulars of the High Court and after holding a written examination a select list of 28 candidates in accordance with the roster was issued signed by the District Judge, Mainpuri on 2.8.2002 and on the same day the appointment letters were also issued. For ready reference the select list is quoted below:

Sr. No.

Roll No.

Name of the candidate

Category

1.

2060

Sri Nagesh Malik

S.C.

2.

3851

Sri Sudeep Kumar Trivedi

Gen.

3.

0174

Sri Akhilesh Kumar Yadav

B.C.

4.

4239

Sri Vedpati Misra

Gen.

5.

2502

Sri Rishi Raj Kureel

S.C.

6.

0071

Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava

Gen.

7.

2105

Sri Mukul Kumar Shakya

B.C.

8.

0415

Smt. Archana Singh

Gen.

9.

2425

Sri Praveen Kumar

B.C.

10.

1553

Sri Kewal Nayan Tripathi

Gen.

11.

4100

Sri Vivek Kumar Maurya

S.C.

12.

4222

Sri Vibhuti Narain Khare

Gen.

13.

3407

Km. Seem Yadav

B.C.

14.

4264

Sri Vinai Kumar Tripathi

Gen.

15.

3887

Sri Satya Pal Singh

S.C.

16.

3452

Sri Sheelndra Kumar Mishra

Gen.

17.

2945

Sri Lohman Singh

S.C.

18.

1623

Sri Mohd. Rashid

Gen.

19.

3649

Sri Sanjai Babu Rastori

B.C.

20.

3577

Sri Sameer Kumar

Gen.

21.

0034

Sri Avadhesh Kumar

S.C.

22.

1782

Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava

Gen.

23.

3438

Sri Sanjeev Kumar Verma

B.C.

24.

3667

Sri Shamshad Hussain Jaidi

Gen.

25.

0681

Sri Anand Kumar

S.C.

26.

3103

Km. Sadaf Usman

Gen.

27.

0075

Sri Anoop Kumar

B.C.

28.

0049

Sri Asheesh Srivastava

Gen.

All the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed either challenging the selection itself on various grounds and/or claiming appointment alleging favouritism and malpractice.

In the leading petition serious allegations of manipulation in the recruitment process was alleged and also indicating therein that substantial number of selectees were related to either Judicial Officers or its employees. It was also alleged that the evaluation of answer books was ridden with motivated award of marks.

Several arguments have been raised by the petitioners and countered by the respondents and after hearing them all the answer books were summoned by the Court. The Court and the counsel for the parties were also allowed to examine it. After examination, especially the answer books of the selected candidates, there does not appear to be any necessity to deal with the other arguments except to note certain striking features.

The Court found that neither check list or cross list was prepared nor the merit list was prepared. The Court also examined the Tabulation Chart. The result of the examination of the answer books of the selected candidates shows as under:

In the case of Roll No. 0049 assigned to Sri Ashish Srivastava S/o Sri Ramendra Srivastava, Nazir in the District Court, Mainpuri, while answering question nos. 1 and 3 he was originally awarded 15 marks each but by overwriting in different ink he was later given 20 and 25 marks respectively. Similarly while answering question no. 2 after scoring out the lesser original marks he was given 20 marks. Similar is the case while answering question no. 5. In the aggregate first he was awarded 72 then 76 but both were later obliterated and finally he was given 91 marks. In the tabulation chart also, earlier he was given 72 marks but after obliterating it, 91 marks were shown.

In the case of Roll No. 0071 assigned to Ajay Kumar Srivastava, he was originally awarded 12 marks for answer to question no. 1 but it was converted to 14 and similar is the case with regard to answer to question no. 2. Same is the case with question no. 4 where the earlier 10 marks were converted to 12 and in answer to question no. 5 the original marks were obliterated and 10 marks were awarded. In the aggregate, he has been awarded 96 marks. In the tabulation chart he has been shown to have scored 97 marks but it is in different handwriting and a different pen than that used for other entries on the same page.

In the case of Roll No. 0075 assigned to Sri Anoop Kumar S/o Sri Satya Pal, Bill Clerk in the District Court, Mainpuri though answer to question nos. 1 and 2 does not appear to have been checked but he has been awarded marks in spite of several mistakes. Further, while answering question no. 2 he has disclosed his name. The answer to question no. 3 was first awarded 11 marks but by overwriting in different pen it was changed to 15. Similar is the case with regard to answer to question nos. 4, 5 and 10. In the aggregate lesser marks awarded to him have been obliterated and then 89 marks were given. In the tabulation chart also the original marks have been converted into 89 by overwriting.

In the case of Roll No. 0081 assigned to Anand Kumar, the candidate has been awarded 15 marks while answering question no. 1 but it does not appear that the answer was checked. Same is the case with regard to answer to question nos. 3 and 5. In the aggregate, he has been awarded 88 marks but there is no interpolation in the tabulation chart but it is written in different ink.

In the case of Roll No. 0174 assigned to Akhilesh Kumar Yadav the original marks awarded for question nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been changed and increased. In the aggregate he was awarded 96 marks, however, there is no overwriting in the tabulation chart.

In the case of Roll No. 1553 assigned to Kamal Nayan, he was originally awarded 10 marks for answer to question no. 2 but the same was thereafter converted to 20 by overwriting in different ink. Similarly the answer to question no. 3 was earlier awarded 18 marks but by overwriting it has been converted to 20 in different ink. Again the answer to question no. 1 he was originally awarded 12 marks which have been converted into 18 by different ink. Same is the case with regard to answer to question no. 4 where the earlier awarded 5 marks have been changed to 8. In the aggregate, he was earlier awarded 70 marks which have been converted to 92 by overwriting in different ink. Even in the tabulation chart 70 marks have been converted to 92 by overwriting.

In the case of Roll No. 1623 assigned to Mohd. Rashid S/o Anwar Illahi, Section Officer in District Court, Mainpuri, the court found from the answer sheet that for question no. 2 the candidate was earlier awarded lesser marks but by obliteration it was increased to 13. The marks awarded for question no. 1, first it was 12 marks which were later converted into 14. In respect to question no. 3 he was earlier awarded 10 marks but by overwriting it has been converted into 20. In the aggregate, it appears that he was earlier awarded 72 marks but after obliteration it was increased to 91 marks. Even in the tabulation chart, it is evident that earlier marks awarded to him have been obliterated and then 91 marks have been given.

In the case of Roll No. 1782 assigned to Manoj Kumar Srivastava, the court found from the answer sheet that the answer to question no. 1 was earlier awarded 12 marks but by overwriting it has been converted into 18. In respect to answer to question no. 2, originally he was awarded 12 marks but by overwriting it was changed to 15. Similarly, the answer to question no. 3 was originally awarded 6+1=7 but by overwriting the same has been changed to 10+1=11. Again answer to question no. 4 was awarded 12 marks but by overwriting it has been converted into 18. In respect to answer to question no. 5, originally he was awarded 4 marks but later it was changed to 10 marks by overwriting. In the aggregate, it appears that he was first allotted 66 marks but the same has been obliterated and was awarded 91 marks. Similar is the case with the tabulation chart where the earlier marks awarded have been scored out and obliterated and 91 marks have been given.

In the case of Roll No. 2060 assigned to Nagesh Malik, he was awarded full 5 marks while answering question no. 7, though there were several mistakes. Similar is the position with regard to answer to question no. 6. While writing a pressay of a passage in answering question no. 5 and to suggest its suitable title, he has reproduced the passage after leaving out certain sentences but yet has been awarded 12 marks. While answering question no. 10, though there were mistakes he was awarded 7 marks. The letter in answer to question no. 4 though does not make any sense but he has been given 10 marks. In the aggregate, he has been awarded 90 marks which is also reflected in the tabulation chart but it is entered in a different ink than the other entries on the same page.

In the case of Roll No. 2105 assigned to Nakul Kumar Shakya the lesser marks awarded to answer to question no. 1 were obliterated and converted to 8. The candidate has disclosed his name while answering question nos. 2 and 4. In the aggregate, he has been awarded 92 marks which have also been reflected in the tabulation chart.

In the case of Roll No. 2425 assigned to Pravesh Kumar the answer to question no. 2 was earlier awarded 0 marks which was then converted to 6 by overwriting in different ink but it was then obliterated and he was awarded 7 marks again in different ink. The answer to question no. 3 was earlier awarded 1+5=6 marks which have been converted into 11+5=16 marks by overwriting. Again the 10 marks awarded to question no. 4 have been converted to 16 by overwriting. Similarly 10 marks for question no. 1 have also been converted to 16. In the aggregate, he has been awarded 92 marks which has also been reflected in the tabulation chart.

In the case of Roll No. 2502 assigned to Rishiraj Kurail the answer to question no. 1 was originally awarded 6 or 8 marks but after obliterating it, it was converted to 12. Similarly, marks awarded for answer to question no. 2 was changed from 11 to 17 in different ink and so is the case with regard to answer to question no. 5. In the aggregate, 76 have been converted to 90 by overwriting. In the tabulation chart also the earlier marks entered have been obliterated and converted to 90.

In the case of Roll No. 3103 assigned to Km. Sadaf Usman D/o Usman, Musarim in the court, it was found from the answer sheet that the answer to question no. 3 was earlier awarded 4 marks but after obliteration it was replaced by 9 marks. Similar is the case with respect to answer to question no. 2 whereafter overwriting he was finally awarded 10 marks. Likewise, answer to question no. 1 was firstly awarded 7 marks but by overwriting it was converted to 19. In the aggregate also the original marks have been obliterated and then 91 marks were awarded. Even in the tabulation chart there is overwriting in the marks.

In the case of Roll No. 3452 assigned to Sri Shailandra Kumar Mishra S/o Sri Vinok Kumar Misra, Steno to the District Judge, the court found from the answer sheet that while the answering question no. 2 the candidate has disclosed his name and made a feeble attempt to score it out but it is visible to the naked eye. Even though the answer to two parts of the question while answering question no. 13 were wrong he was awarded 4 out of 5 marks. Though there is no overwriting or obliteration in the aggregate of 91 marks, there is obliteration in the tabulation chart.

In the case of Roll No. 3577 assigned to Sameer Kumar the court found from the answer sheet that the answer to question no. 1 was earlier awarded 10 marks but after obliteration he was given 15 marks. In respect to answer to question no. 2 he was earlier awarded 8 marks which were later scored out and replaced by 10 marks. This again was converted to 12 by overwriting. The answer to question no. 4 was earlier allotted 2 marks which has been obliterated and thereafter 10 marks were awarded by different ink and pen. Similar is the position in respect to answer to question no. 5 where earlier 7 marks were allotted by overwriting and scoring out at three places, he was awarded 13 marks. Even in the aggregate the candidate was earlier awarded 72 marks but by overwriting it has been changed to 91. Same is the case with tabulation chart and the total marks have been tampered and obliterated and 91 marks have been shown.

In the case of Roll No. 3649 assigned to Sanjay Babu Rastogi the court found from the answer sheet that the marks awarded for question no. 1 were obliterated and later on 20 marks were awarded. The answer to question no. 2 earlier was awarded 7 marks and then 8 marks and thereafter both have been obliterated and finally 14 marks were awarded. The answer to question no. 3 was first awarded 1+6=7 but by overwriting it has been changed to 1+13=14 marks. The answer to question no. 4 was earlier awarded 1 mark but by overwriting it was converted to 3 and similarly answer to question no. 5 was earlier awarded 8 marks but it has been converted into 9. In the aggregate, first he was awarded 67 marks but by overwriting it has been converted into 89. Similar is the case with regard to the marks reflected in the tabulation chart where the original marks have been obliterated and 89 has been shown.

In the case of Roll No. 3667 assigned to Shamsad Husain Zaidi the court found from the answer sheet that the answer to question no. 1 was earlier awarded 15 marks which was later converted into 19. Similarly, answer to question no. 2 was earlier awarded 8 marks but by obliteration 11 marks were later given. Same is the position in respect to answer to question no. 3 where 10 marks earlier awarded were obliterated and then 14 marks were given. He was allotted 2 marks for answer to question no. 5 but by overwriting it has been converted into 8. In the aggregate, the original marks which appear to be 24 or 74 have been obliterated and thereafter 91 marks were given. Same is the position with the tabulation chart where the earlier marks have been obliterated and 91 marks have been shown.

In the case of Roll No. 3851 assigned to Sudeep Kumar Trivedi the court found from the answer sheet that the answer to question no. 2 was originally awarded 7 marks but it was obliterated and 12 marks were given by different ink and pen. Similar is the case with regard to answer to question no. 4 and the earlier marks have been obliterated and 12 marks were awarded in different ink and pen. Seven marks were awarded to question no. 5 the same has been converted to 12 by different ink. The answer to question no. 3 was firstly awarded 5 marks then 8 marks and after obliteration of both the marks he was finally awarded 12 marks in different ink and pen. The answer to question no. 1 was firstly awarded 8 marks but after scoring out he was given 14 marks by different ink and pen. In the aggregate, it appears that he was earlier given 74 marks but the same has been obliterated and then 99 marks were given. However, there is no overwriting or cutting in the marks reflected in the tabulation chart.

In the case of Roll No. 4100 assigned to Sri Vivek Kumar Maurya S/o Sri Indrajeet Maurya, Special C.J.M., Mainpuri the court found from the answer sheet that the marks earlier awarded to answer to question no. 1 have been obliterated and then 16 marks were shown. In answer to question no. 2 he has disclosed his name making a feeble attempt thereafter to score it out. Even though only 4 sub questions of question no. 6 were correctly answered, he was awarded 5 marks. In the aggregate also there is overwriting and probably 76 have been converted into 90. Even in the tabulation chart there is complete obliteration of the earlier marks and 90 marks were later shown.

In the case of Roll No. 4222 assigned to Vibhuti Narain Khare while answering question nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 he had firstly given wrong answers but then it was scored out and replaced by using correct answers. The answers to question nos. 1, 2 and 3 does not appear to have been checked but he has been given 20 marks each for the three questions in spite of the fact that there were several mistakes. In the aggregate he has been given 92 marks but in the tabulation chart it is evident that earlier he was awarded 72 marks which have been converted by overwriting into 92 marks.

In the case of Roll No. 4239 assigned to Vedpati Mishra while answering question no. 4 it appears that he was awarded 7 marks but after scoring it out he was given 10 marks. In the aggregate he has been given 98 marks. In the tabulation chart there is overwriting and it appears that 38 marks have been converted into 98 marks.

In the case of Roll No. 4264 assigned to Vinay Kumar Tripathi, he was awarded 18 marks each for question nos. 1 and 2 but a perusal shows that the answer does not appear to have been checked and there are several mistakes. While answering question no. 3 he was awarded 13 marks but by overwriting it was converted to 15. While answering question no. 6 which related to giving the full names of the abbreviations used though he gave correct answers only for 2 but was awarded 5 marks. Similarly even though he had giving correct answers for 6 out of 10 in answering question no. 10 he was allotted 7 marks. Same is the case with regard to question no. 13. In the aggregate, he has been awarded 92 marks and in the tabulation chart 72 have been changed to 92.

The Court has examined other answer books and it reveals that several answer books have not even been evaluated

There are several other tell tale signs, but the Court is refraining to detail them except for few which relate the entire story.

It is evident from the record that the appointment letters were signed on 2.8.2002 by the District Judge and addressed to the candidates at their addresses at Etawah, Ghaziabad, Agra, Ghazipur, Allahabad, Shikohabad etc., and all of them appear to have received it on 2.8.2002 itself and got their formalities completed on the same date, including Medical Examination, and joined on 3.8.2002.

As is evident, only 14 posts were vacant for which the recruitment process was initiated but it is admitted that 28 persons were appointed. The judgeship has submitted an explanation that three persons were promoted on 3.8.2002 creating vacancies. It is further explained that 10 class III employees were granted leave for a month on their applications dated 5.8.2002 and 6.8.2002 and one Mahesh Chandra Tripathi also went on leave, creating another 11 vacancies. Therefore, it is justified that the judgeship was within its jurisdiction to have granted appointment to 28 persons. The Court has no doubt but to hold that these 14 vacancies were artificially created only for the purposes of appointing the rest 14 from the list. Assuming that vacancies had arisen but none of these vacancies could be categorised as anticipated vacancies and once all the advertised posts were filled up, the select list stood exhausted. A Division Bench of our Court in the case of District Judge, Bagpat Vs. Anurag Kumar [2005 E.S.C. 755] has held:

"In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that as only ten vacancies had been advertised, there could be no justification for the authority concerned to fill up more than ten vacancies as it included the then existing as well as vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year. Once ten vacancies had been filled up, the selection process stood exhausted, and the authority concerned become functus offico. Any appointment made by him beyond that number, is without jurisdiction, therefore a nullity, inexecutable and unforceable in law."

A vehement defence has been raised on behalf of one of the selectees Sri Ashish Srivastava stating that he was a physically handicapped person and, therefore, was given the benefit thereof and his appointment cannot be questioned. The Court has already examined his answer book and comments have already been made and, therefore, even assuming and that he was physically handicapped, his selection was vitiated.

Considering the entire facts in its totality, the Court is left with no other option but to quash the entire selection. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the entire selection at the Judgeship of Mainpuri is set aside. The District Judge, Mainpuri may proceed to hold selections in accordance with law but the candidature of the petitioners will not be rejected only on the ground of having become over age during the pendency of this petition. No order as to costs.