- (1.) THE petitioner who had been a candidate in the process of recruitment to the post of Lecturer in History has preferred this writ petition, rather in the second round of litigation, seeking to question the validity of the result declared by the respondent U. P. Public Service Commission ('the Commission').
(2.) TOTAL 13 vacancies were advertised in the subject of history of which, 4 were reserved for Other Backward Classes and 2 for the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner had applied for and appeared in the screening examination where she was declared successful. Thereafter, she appeared in the interview.
(3.) ON 27.3.2014, the final result of the recruitment process so undertaken was declared wherein the name of the petitioner appeared in the list of successful candidates. However, another list of successful candidates was published by the Commission on 28.3.2014 while cancelling the earlier result declared on the previous day i.e., 27.3.2014 . In this amended result dated 28.3.2014, the name of the petitioner was omitted and in her place name of another candidate Neetu Maurya appeared. Dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court being Writ A No. 29195 of 2014 which was considered and disposed of by a coordinate Bench on 26.5.2014 with the following order : "Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kashif Zaidi and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Records of the Commission have been produced before us. It appears that after the final result sheet was prepared and sealed, Mr. Suresh Kumar, the Private Secretary of one of the members, Sri Guru Darshan Singh prepared a memo dated 27.03.2014 addressed to the said member indicating that while preparing the final merit list from the combined merit list, some error had crept in and consequently, the same required a correction. The records, which have been produced by Sri Zaidi and Sri Yadav before the court, have been perused by us and we find that the said note prepared by Mr. Suresh Kumar does not indicate the exact error or the error that had crept in, in the preparation of the list. The said error was taken notice of and an order was passed on 28.03.2014 for placing the matter before the Board as the explanation given by Mr. Suresh Kumar was not satisfactory. The matter appears to have been taken up and the result sheet has been altered eliminating the name of the petitioner from the final select list and introducing the name of one, Neetu Maurya, which has happened on the very next date, on which the said note was prepared by Sri Suresh Kumar. We are surprised at the manner in which this entire exercise has been undertaken by the respondent Commission without following any procedure prescribed by law. This has happened directly under the nose of the Chairman and by the officials of the Commission itself. We also find that the envelopes, which are in sealed cover containing the list, have not been opened and the impugned order has been issued presumably on the basis of some information of an error about which there is no indication in any of the documents in the entire records. The error on the basis, whereof this exercise has been undertaken, is, therefore, not identifiable on the basis of the records at all. Consequently, the decision taken by the respondent Commission cannot be said to have received the appropriate attention as is required under Rules inasmuch as it has been hastily taken on the very next date and appears to be clearly a knee jerk reaction. Today when the matter was taken up, Sri Kasif Zaidi and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, after having obtained instructions from the Chairman, have informed the court that the order impugned and the aforesaid exercise undertaken shall be withdrawn forthwith and an order shall be issued to that effect by tomorrow. In view of the aforesaid statement, the notice dated 28.03.2014 and the consequential office memorandum dated 15.05.2014 shall also stand withdrawn. The Commission can only proceed provided any such power is available with the Commission to review the results already prepared or in the event of any detection of fraud or misrepresentation. In the event, it is found that any official of the Commission has committed any error deliberately or committedly, the same shall be dealt with severely by taking appropriate action against the said official. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The original records, which have been produced, are returned back to Sri Zaidi for being transmitted to the Commission for action as directed hereinabove. Order Date : - 26.5.2014 NLY" Thus, this Court was not satisfied with the alteration of the result without any basis; and the Court took note of the submissions made on behalf of the Commission that the exercise of revising of the result would be withdrawn and requisite orders would be issued by the Commission.;