CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Sandeep Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 2 December 2005 · Citation: (2005) 12 AHC CK 0101

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.M.Sahai, J and Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.73054 of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 384 words

Barkat All Zaidi, J.

1.

what happened was that the petitioner applied for appearing in the examination for U.P. Combined State and Upper Subordinate Service (Pre.) Examination, 2005 to be held on 4.12.2005 by respondent, Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. The Public Service Commission rejected petitioner''s Form No.090178 (Series in the UPSPR) because instead of a form of general candidates, as he was, he filled up the form of Scheduled Castes, i.e., PCSPR Series and intimated the petitioner accordingly.

2.

The petitioner requested the respondent Public Service Commission to permit him to rectify the error in the form, but in vain, and that is how, this petition.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.A. Quadir for respondents No.2 and 3.

4.

The petitioner says that he is entitled to correct the error and then appear in the examination, because he is 32 years of age, and at he threshold of the maximum permissible age limit, which means, that it would be almost his last chance.

5.

It will be noticed that in two sets of application Forms, issued by respondent Public Service Commission, it has not been clearly specified that this Form i.e. PCSPR series is meant for Schedule Caste candidates, or General candidates and there is a prescribed series with code words, indicating to which category, the Form applies. Such unclear description can always lead to errors and this must be treated to be a case of contributory Negligence.

6.

In a scenario of this nature, the proper course, for the respondent Public Service Commission was to get the error rectified, and the difference in the fee could have been realised, petitioner. There was no intention on the part of petitioner, to defraud or misrepresent, because he noted in the body of Form, that he as a candidate of Genral category.

7.

In these circumstances, the demand of justice require that the petitioner be given an opportunity by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to rectify the error, and he should be allowed, to appear in the said examination, thereafter.

8.

Writ is issued accordingly.

9.

Office is directed to issue the copy of the order today to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges.

(Petition allowed)