- (1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a direction to respondents to promote the petitioner from Class IV to Class III post in the handicapped quota in terms of the Office Clerical Grade (Appointment through Promotion) Rule, 2001. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in a Class- IV post in the Office of Joint Director, Meerut Region, Meerut under the dying-in-harness rule in the handicapped quota of 2001. Thereafter selection for promotion on a Class III Post, in which the petitioner appeared, was held on 11.06.2013. He did not qualify. The allegation is that the selection was held without calling instructor of I.T.I. and employment Office for conducting the typing test as a result of which in the selection 10 candidates were promoted as junior Clerk. The allegation further is that the promotion of10 candidates has been made in violation of guidelines indicated by the Director of Agriculture, U.P. Lucknow in Government Order dated 31.08.1982 and Government Order dated 03.09.1995 and the Rules 2001. How these Rules or guidelines or G.Os. has been violated has not been outlined anywhere in the writ petition nor in the grounds filed in support of the writ petition. All that has been stated is that the petitioner was entitled for promotion to Class-III post on completion of 12 years of continuous service. But it is not disputed that he was given an opportunity of appearing in the selection, which he did and failed to qualify.
(2.) The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, 1986 AIR(SC) 1043 has held that the person having appeared in the examination and having failed to qualify cannot subsequently turn around and question the same.
(3.) Para 23 of the said judgment reads as follows: "Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.";