Pradeep Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

The appellant has challenged the legality of the order, dated 30.09.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1264 of 2021, whereby the learned Singl Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were referred to in the writ petition.

According to the petitioner, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ('the Commission' for short), respondent No. 2, had advertised certain posts for Lecturer Hindi (General). Since the petitioner was eligible for the said post, he applied for the same. He cleared the Screening Test. He had to appear in the main examination, for which he had to deposit a fee of Rs. 175/-. The last date for depositing the fee was 21.08.2021. Moreover, according to the petitioner, due to the ill health of his mother, he could not deposit the said amount by 21.08.2021. Therefore, he had submitted a representation before the Commission requesting it to permit him to deposit the fee after the last date, i.e. after 21.08.2021. However, the request of the petitioner has been declined by the Commission. Therefore, he had filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. As aforementioned, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, the learned proxy counsel for Mr. Anil Anthwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the present appeal is nothing but a mercy petition on behalf of the petitioner. Due to the ill health of his mother, the petitioner could not deposit the requisite fee by 21.08.2021. Considering this case to be a case of sheer hardship, the petitioner should be permitted not only to deposit the examination fee, but also to sit in the main examination.

On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Pundir, the learned counsel for the Commission, submits that once a procedure has been established, and once the last date for depositing the fee was known to the petitioner, the procedure cannot be changed. If a misplaced sympathy were shown in the case of the petitioner, it would create a havoc in the selection process. For others, who have missed the deadline, would equally demand that they be permitted to deposit the examination fees beyond the last date for depositing the amount. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Commission has supported the impugned order.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is, indeed, trite to state that once a procedure has been established, no deviation from the said procedure is allowed. Further, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that the High Court should not show a misplaced sympathy in the cases of the persons, who may have failed to deposit the requisite fee for taking an examination. Therefore, this Court may have sympathies for the petitioner, but the sympathies cannot change the requirements of the law. Since the petitioner was required to deposit the fee by 21.08.2021, no exception can be made in the present case.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.

No order as to costs.