- (1.) Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Durgesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate for petitioner and Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), published an advertisement dated 23.03.2013, inviting applications for various posts for appointment on the posts of Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (General Recruitment) Examination, 2013. Petitioner before this Court is stated to have submitted his application in response to the advertisement so published by the Commission. Some of the posts published by way of said advertisement were named "Designated Officer". Dispute giving rise to the present writ petition is with respect to the posts of Designated Officer for which special qualifications were also prescribed.
(2.) It is not disputed that petitioner does satisfies special qualifications prescribed for the said post. The application form contained amongst others Coloumn no. 20, which provided for other essential qualifications. The petitioner had admittedly left Coloumn No. 20 blank in his application form. Because of Coloumn No. 20 having not been filled by the petitioner, it was decided by the Commission that he has not opted for the post of Designated Officer and therefore, in the results of Preliminary Examination, which were declared on 27.05.2014, Roll Number of the petitioner was shown only in the list prepared for the posts covered by "Executive" only and not for the posts covered by "Designated Officer". The Mains Examination, took place on 01.07.2015, the result of the Mains Examination was declared on 13th January, 2015. According to the Commission, result of main examination was again preapred on the basis of the options given by the candidates, namely "Executive" and/or "Designated Officer", separately. Name of petitioner was shown in the list prepared for the post categorised under the heading "Executive" and not against the posts covered by "Designated Officer". Interview is stated to have taken place and final result had been declarted category wise, which has been up loaded on the website of the Commission.
(3.) Petitioner before this Court seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the Commission to consider his candidature against the posts of "Designated Officer" on the basis of over all marks received by him in the said examination within the category to which he belongs. It is also stated before us that persons who are lower in merit than petitioner have been offered the posts under the heading "Designated Officer", while petitioner has been nonsuited for the said posts, only because he had left Coloumn No. 20 of the application form, blank. Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioner, with reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, being Writ Petition No. 31864 of 2014, decided on 13th June, 2014, submits that the issue with regard to Coloumn No. 20, having been left blank and therefore candidature of the candidate concerned being excluded from consideration against the posts of "Designated Officers", has been examined and it has been laid down that since petitioners in that case were eligible for the post of "Designated Officer" and had obtained more marks than cut-off marks, he was entitled to appear in the Main Examination, against the posts of "Designated Officer" also. Applying the same principle, Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate submitted that since, the petitioner had secured minimum qualifying marks required for appearing in the Mains Examination, it was not necessary for him to approach this Court earlier and it is only when final result has been declared, that he came to know that his candidature against the posts "Designated Officer" has been non suited because of Coloumn No. 20 of application form having been left blank. Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate on behalf of the Commission, on the contrary pointed out that after the judgment in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh , as many as 50 writ petitions were filed before this High Court by the candidates who were not invited for participation in the Mains Examination. In all these 50 writ petitions the order of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Ajay Pratap Singh has been followed. Petitioners of these 50 writ petitions, who were nearly 80 in number, have been invited for participation in the Mains Examination, under the orders of the High Court. Their candidature for the posts of "Designated Officer" has also been considered, even though coloumn no. 20 of their applications was left blank. It is stated that all those petitioners who have been successful in the Mains Examination and Interview have been selected against the posts of "Designated Officer". Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate however submits that this practice which has been undertaken by the Commission, because of the orders of the High Court, may not be applied in the case of the petitioner herein, inasmuch as in the result of Priliminary Examination his roll number was disclosed against the post covered under the heading "Executive" only. Similarly, in the result of Mains Examination, his roll number was disclosed against the posts within the heading "Executive" only, consequently, after Interview, his candidature has been confined to the post within the heading "Executive". It is explained that Division Bench of this Court in the cae of Vinay Kumar Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Writ A No. 617 of 2015, decided on 15.01.2015 has held that persons who had been selected for the posts within the heading "Executive" cannot be permitted to challenge the selections at the stage when the final results have been declared and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches/inordinate delay. Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate submits that this writ petition must also meet the same fate. Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate in his rejoinder affidavit submits that the selection procedure, held for the posts covered under the heading "Executive" and for the post covered under the heading "Designated Officer" was one and the same, right from the stage of Priliminary Examination till the stage of Interview. No separate question paper was prepared nor any separate Inverview Board was constituted vis a vis, category of post. It is also stated that candidates who appeared before the Inverview Board were allotted code numbers without their identity being disclosed to the Members of the Board and without the Members being informed as to whether candidate is to be considered only for the posts under heading "Executive" or for the posts under the heading "Designated Officer". He submits that only at the time of preparation of final results, that Commission has again reopened the controversy with regard to Coloumn No. 20 and has declared that candidates leaving the Coloumn No. 20 blank as unsuitable for the posts under the heading "Designated Officer". Persons lower in merit have been selected against the posts of "Designated Officer", only on the ground that they had disclosed required information in Coloumn No. 20.;