Pradeep Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of the instant writ petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to deposit the required Examination Fee for main/interview examination and accept the same treating the same as has been deposited within time by the petitioner and also permit the petitioner to appear in Main/interview Examination and declare his result in accordance with law for the post of Lecturer Hindi (General Branch) bearing Roll No.835953 pursuant to selection process started by the respondent No.2 vide Advertisement No.A-1/S-1/2020.

(ii) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners."

It is the case of the petitioner that he responded to an advertisement, issued by the respondent no.2, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission"). He applied for the post of Lecturer Hindi (General). Petitioner appeared in the screening test, which he cleared. He was to appear for the Main Examination and for that purpose, he was required to deposit Rs.175/-, for Main Examination fee till 21.08.2021. But, it is the case of the petitioner that he could not deposit the fee online due to the pathetic condition of his mother. Petitioner approached the Commission, but, he was not permitted to deposit the fee after timeline. Hence, the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to which legal right of the petitioner has been violated or infringed, which he wants to redress from this Court?

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as such, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. But, it is submitted that the petitioner is before this Court seeking equitable relief.

Petitioner is appearing in a public examination conducted by the Commission. The number of candidates, may be in hundreds, may be in thousands or may be in lakhs. The timelines have some sanctity in such examination, which are to be adhered to, by the candidates. If any such relaxation is given in such cases, perhaps, it may be a little difficult to conduct any public examination. There may be excuses one or others, may be valid at some times, but, can then this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, extend such timelines as fixed by the Commission for conducting those examination. Perhaps, it may not be done.

The only ground which petitioner seeks for indulgence of the Court that he could not deposit the fee due to pathetic condition of his mother. This may not be a ground, which may warrant indulgence of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.