'Has 27 Yrs Of Service Left': Allahabad High Court Reprieve To 2018 Civil Judge Candidate Denied Post Due To Calculation Error
The Allahabad High Court recently ordered the appointment of a woman as Civil Judge, after it found that she was denied the post in UPPSC (J) Examination 2018, due to calculation error in her marks.The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh also took into account her young age (33 years) and directed that her appointment shall operate at the seniority position...
The Allahabad High Court recently ordered the appointment of a woman as Civil Judge, after it found that she was denied the post in UPPSC (J) Examination 2018, due to calculation error in her marks.
The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh also took into account her young age (33 years) and directed that her appointment shall operate at the seniority position on which she would have been, had she been awarded the marks at the time of examination.
It also brushed aside the woman's delay in making an RTI application to inspect her answer copy, stating that any individual who had been unsuccessful at a public examination would require some time to recover from their failure.
Awarding marks to the candidate, the Court observed,
“In the backdrop of the presumption that exists with the favour of all actions performed by the State Government and UPPSC and the inexperience in life that must be attributed to the petitioner, a margin of time must be given to her. She would have taken time to seek due consultation and guidance with family, friends and lawyers to discover the path to her remedies. At that stage, no forum for counselling or guidance or redressal of grievances was offered by the Commission, as may have allowed the petitioner to act earlier.”
Petitioner appeared for the U.P. Judicial Service, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2018 wherein she was awarded a total of 473 marks. The cut-off for the Scheduled Caste Category was 475 marks. Thereafter, on 07.08.2020, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to inspect her answer copy.
Upon inspection, she found that she had been awarded two marks lesser than what she had been marked in the English Language portion of the examination. Realising that she would have qualified for the post had she been awarded the two marks, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the same.
Thereafter, the petition remained pending for more than three years. Upon hearing, the Court observed there had been a calculation error due to which the petitioner had been awarded 86 marks in the English paper as opposed to 88. It was observed this would qualify the petitioner for the post she had applied for and in order to further examine her claim, gave the UPPSC a period of five days to file an affidavit with regard to their finding.
In their response, the Commission stated that in the year the petitioner had given the examination three candidates had been selected and an additional candidate was chosen upon a direction by the State. It was submitted that that in the case the petitioner received the additional two marks, being the eldest, she would be placed above all the candidates that were selected for the post and the person last chosen for the post would be removed from service.
Further, respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground of delay by the petitioner in making her application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was contended that the petitioner had appeared in the examination years ago and it was too late for the Commission to make any changes.
Counsel for the High Court informed the Court that one position of Civil Judge (Junior Division) still remained vacant.
Observing that the petitioner had filed the writ petition within 90 days of inspecting her answer copy, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief.
The Court held that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not being suspicious of the marks awarded to her when the results were declared, and having filed the petition with delay.
“There is no presumption or room existing with the citizenry to believe or suspect that they would be arbitrarily or unfairly dealt with in the conduct of such public examinations. Therefore, if the petitioner did not immediately act upon declaration of the final result on 20.07.2019, it cannot be said that petitioner did not act with due diligence or the petitioner acted with any amount of inherent negligence,” held the Court.
Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that given the fact that the petitioner could still be in service for a period of 27 years, she deserved appointment under UPPSC (J) 2018.
Accordingly, she was awarded all consequential benefits barring arrears of salary and was also directed to be placed at the seniority of her batch of 2018. It was directed that if required, a supernumerary post be created for her.
Case Title: Janhvi v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 3887 of 2021]