Badri Posad Singh vs Public Service Commission,Alld.& Ors.

R. A. Sharma, J.—Pursuant lo an advertisement issued by U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) inviting applications for Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services Preliminary Examination, 1997, the petitioner submitted his application. According to the advertisement the examination fee was required to be deposited through Bank Draft or Treasury Challan, but the petitioner has deposited the said fee through Banker''s Cheque. His application was rejected by the Commission on (he ground that the failed to deposit the fee in the manner specified by the Commission. Being aggrieved he. filed this writ petition.

While entertaining this writ petition this Court on May 23, 1997 issued interim mandamus directing the Commission lo provisionally permit the petitioner to appear in the examination, the result of which shall he subject to final decision of the writ petition. By the same order this Court granted time to the Commission to file counteraffidavit. The Commission has filed a counteraffidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard Sri S.P. Pandey learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.M. Sahai learned Counsel (or the Commission.

The examination fee is to be deposited by the candidates in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the advertisement. In the instant case, the Commission has prescribed two modes for depositing the fee, namely, through Bank Draft or Treasury Challan. The petitioner did not deposit the fee in any of the manners specified above. He, however deposited the fee through Banker''s Cheque which was refused by the Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commission itself has been accepting the examination fee through Banker''s Cheques. In this connection reference may be made to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, which are reproduced below:

"8. That the opposite parlies used to accept banker''s cheque issued by the local branches of nationalised banks. Alongwith the petitioner one Sri Prabha Shanker Misra an applicant of this very examination also filled up his form. Sri Misra also paid his fees through banker''s cheque issued by the same bank on the same day. Petitioner and Sri Mishra both applied on the same day. The application of Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra has been accepted and admission card has been issued to him while the application of the petitioner has been rejected this act of the opposite parties is most discriminatory. The true copy of the admission card issued to Sri Prabha Shanker Misra is being filed as Annexure3 to this writ petition.

That not only this but the petitioner has also applied in another examination held by the opposite parties for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer. There also the same procedure has been prescribed for depositing the fees. The petitioner deposited his fees through banker''s cheque. The application ''of the petitioner has been accepted and admission card has been issued. The true copy of admission card is being filed as Annexure4 to the writ petition."

Paragraph 4 of the counteraffidavit which contains the reply of paragraphs 7 to 10 of the writ petition, is as follows:

"4. That the contents of paragraph 7 to 10 of the writ petition are not admitted. It is further stated that as already laid down in the advertisement, it was the duty of petitioner to pay the required fee by TC. or Bank Draft only but he violated the clear instruction of the advertisement. Hence the Commission rejected his candidature. This order of the Commission is neither illegal nor arbitrary as alleged by the petitioner."

It is thus apparent that petitioner''s averments to the effect that in other cases Banker''s Cheques have been accepted by the Commission, have not been denied. The petitioner has filed the Admit Card issued by the Commission to Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra for the same examination, who has also deposited the examination fee through Banker''s Cheque. Although Sri Mishra''s fee has been accepted and he has been allowed to appear in the examination, of the petitioner''s fee has been refused. The petitioner has also filed Admit Card issued to him by the Commission for another examination for which the fee was required to be deposited in the same manner i.e. through Treasury Challan or Bank Draft, even though he has deposited the fee through Banker''s Cheque. These averments made by the petitioner remain unrebutted. It is open to the Commission to prescribe any manner/mode for accepting the examination fee, but whatever manner or mode is prescribed, it should be followed uniformally and consistently without any discrimination. That apart, the technical breach as regards the manner/mode of depositing the fee should not be made basis for rejecting the application by the Commission unless some prejudice has been caused or is likely to be caused to it. In the present case it is clearly established that the petitioner has been discriminated against by the Commission. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

This writ petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 2541997 (Annexure2 to the writ petition) is quashed. As the petitioner has already appeared in the examination the Commission is directed to declare his result forthwith. In case it is found that the petitioner has passed the preliminary examination he will be permitted to appear in the main examination also. .

Certified copy of this judgment may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within ten days.