Arvind Awasthi vs Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission and Another

R.A. Sharma, J.—In response to the advertisement issued by U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) inviting applications for combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 1996, the Petitioner submitted his application in time. He appeared in preliminary examination and was declared successful entitling him to appear in main examination. By a letter dated 11.4.1997, Commission informed the Petitioner that his application has been rejected on the ground that he has not disclosed the optional subjects in the application form.

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed this writ petition. On 24.4.97 while entertaining this petition, this Court passed the following interim orders:

Smt. Sadhana Upadhyaya and Sri Sant Saran Sharma learned Counsel appear for the Petitioner, Sri R C. Saxena, holding brief of Sri V.M. Sahai, appears for the U.P. Public Service Commission. They are heard on the question of admission and stay.

It is submitted for Petitioner that his application has been rejected vide order dated 11.4.97 (Annexure 1) on the ground that the optional subjects have not been disclosed in the application form. It is further submitted that though the date of order is shown 11.4.97 yet it was infact despatched by the Commission on 18.4.1997, and as such no time was left for the Petitioner to rectify the mistake. Had it been pointed out earlier, the mistake could have been rectified.

Thus, the case appears to be arguable.

Learned counsel for the Commission prays for and is granted 3 weeks'' time to file counter-affidavit. Meanwhile, Petitioner shall be permitted to appear provisionally in the U.P. P. C. S. (Main) Examination, 1996 but his result shall not be declared until further orders of this Court.

This petition be connected with Harikesh Bahadur Singh v. V.P. Public Service Commission and Ors. Writ No. 14003 of 1997. Copy of this order be given by today.

Dated : 24.4.97 Sd./- B. M. Lal, J. Sd./- Bhagwan Din, J.

Pursuant to the said interim order, the Petitioner has appeared in the main examination but his result has not been declared so far.

Sri V. M. Sahai learned Counsel for the Commission has filed counter-affidavit which shall be placed on record, Mrs. Sadhana Upadhyaya learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner does not want to file any rejoinder-affidavit. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

From perusal of the letter dated 11.4.97, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the petition, and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it is apparent that the only ground for rejection of the Petitioner''s application is the non-disclosure of the optional subjects in the application form. It is essential that the application form which a candidate submits before the Commission must contain necessary particulars disclosing relevant Information required by the Commission. If the application is incomplete, it is open to the Commission to reject it. Although the Commission has the power to reject incomplete application but it is not bound to do so. The act of the Commission must be fair and reasonable. Therefore, as far as. possible, it is duty of the Commission to give an opportunity to the applicant to supply necessary information/particulars so as to rectify the mistake in the application form.

In The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Goverdhan Regular Motor Service and Others, . Supreme Court while dealing with the case relating to the application for permit under Motor Vehicles Act held:

...It is needless to state that an applicants must furnish full and complete Information that is within his knowledge or possession, in his application for the grant of a permit. The scheme of the Act is quite clear, viz. that an applicant must have a proper permit for operating transport services. To obtain that permit, certain formalities and procedure have to be gone through.

Supreme Court accordingly held that although the application for permit cannot be rejected summarily even if it is incomplete on account of want of provision in the Act giving such a power to the Transport Authority, but it is open to the authority to refuse to grant permit on the basis of such application. After having held as above. Supreme Court further laid down that it is open to the Transport Authority to ask the applicant to give more complete details.

In the Instant case, the impugned order is dated 11.4.1997 but it was given to the Petitioner on 18.4.1997 giving hardly any time for the latter to approach the Commission to rectify the mistake. It is, however, not necessary to go into this question any further because the Petitioner has already appeared in the main examination pursuant to the interim order of this Court passed on 24.4.1997 and, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it Is appropriate that his result should be declared.

This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Commission is directed to declare the Petitioner''s result of the examination in which he appeared pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 24.4.1997. Optional subject which he has adopted for the examination shall be treated as his optional subjects and an endorsement to that effect shall be made on the Petitioner''s application form by the Commission.