Alok Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow and Ors

Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5676 of 2019 Petitioner :- Alok Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Indra Pal Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶1Heard Mr. Santosh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathaur, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State Authorities.

¶2This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, impugning the order dated 15.02.2019 whereby the petitioner's representation, in compliance of the order dated

15.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.32992 (S/S) of 2018, has been considered and rejected.

¶3The petitioner, having requisite qualification, participated in the recruitment examination conducted pursuant to Notification issued on 29.12.2015 for the recruitment of 23200 constables (civil police) and 5716 constables (provincial armed constabulary); total 28916 posts of constables were advertised;

17.02.2016 was the last date for registration of online application and 22.02.2016 was the date for submission of the application.

¶4The petitioner applied, and he was allotted roll no.00375697; he appeared in physical efficiency test on 13.05.2016, and cleared the same successfully; thereafter, he appeared in written examination, and scored 402.4 marks; the cut-off-marks was declared 406.7 for general candidate; since the petitioner did not meet the cut-off-marks, he was not called for further process of the recruitment; cut-off-marks was revised, and finally the same was determined to be 399.33 vide order dated 07.09.2018. The candidates, who scored more than the cut-off-marks, were communicated personally through their mobile numbers, and requisite information was also published in the newspaper; the candidates were called for verification of their documents.

¶5The petitioner was given 18.09.2018 for verification of his documents for further recruitment process. The petitioner did not appear for verification of his documents on 18.09.2018, however, he went with his documents allegedly on 28.09.2018. By that time, verification of documents were completed, physical efficiency test of the candidates was also conducted and final result was declared on 23.01.2019.

¶6In the impugned order, it has been said that it was specifically provided that if a candidate does not appear on the date fixed for verification of the documents and physical efficiency test, he would not be given second chance. As the recruitment process got completed and the persons were sent for training, the petitioner's representation was rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2019. After four years, when the recruitment process got completed, and admittedly the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for verification of his documents, and thereafter for physical efficiency test, this Court, at this distant point of time, cannot direct for verification of his documents in respect of the selection process, which got completed in the year 2019 for conducting his physical efficiency test. In view thereof, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. This petition is, therefore, dismissed, being devoid of merit and substance. [D.K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 5.7.2023 MVS/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench