- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Pursuant lo an advertisement issued by U. P. Public Ser vice Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) inviting applications for Combined State/upper Subordinate Services Preliminary Ex amination, 1997, the petitioner submitted his application. According to the adver tisement the examination fee was required to be deposited through Bank Draft or Treasury Challan, but the petitioner has deposited the said fee through Banker's Cheque. His application was rejected by the Commission on (he ground that the failed to deposit the fee in the manner specified by the Commission. Being ag grieved he. filed this writ petition.
(2.) WHILE entertaining this writ peti tion this Court on May 23, 1997 issued interim mandamus directing the Commis sion lo provisionally permit the petitioner to appear in the examination, the result of which shall he subject to final decision of the writ petition. By the same order this Court granted time to the Commission to file counter-affidavit. The Commission has filed a counter-affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder- affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard Sri S. P. Pandey learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. M. Sahai learned Counsel (or the Commission. The examination fee is to be deposited by the candidates in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the advertisement. In the instant case, the Commission has prescribed two modes for depositing the fee, namely, through Bank Draft or Treasury Challan. The petitioner did not deposit the fee in any of the man ners specified above. He, however deposited the fee through Banker's Che que which was refused by the Commission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commission itself has been accepting the examination fee through Banker's Che ques. In this connection reference may be made to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, which are reproduced below: "8. That the opposite parlies used to ac cept banker's cheque issued by the local branches of nationalised banks. Alongwith the petitioner one Sri Prabha Shanker Misra an ap plicant of this very examination also filled up his form. Sri Misra also paid his fees through banker's cheque issued by the same bank on the same day. Petitioner and Sri Mishra both ap plied on the same day. The application of Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra has been accepted and admission card has been issued to him while the application of the petitioner has been rejected this act of the opposite parties is most dis criminatory. The true copy of the admission card issued to Sri Prabha Shanker Misra is being filed as Annexure-3 to this writ petition. 9. That not only this but the petitioner has also applied in another examination held by the opposite parties for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer. There also the same proce dure has been prescribed for depositing the fees. The petitioner deposited his fees through banker's cheque. The application 'of the petitioner has been accepted and admission card has been issued. The true copy of admission card is being filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. " Paragraph 4 of the counter-af fidavit which contains the reply of para graphs 7 to 10 of the writ petition, is as follows: "4. That the contents of paragraph 7 to 10 of the writ petition are not admitted. It is further stated that as already laid down in the advertise ment, it was the duty of petitioner to pay the required fee by TC. or Bank Draft only but he violated the clear instruction of the advertise ment. Hence the Commission rejected his can didature. This order of the Commission is neither illegal nor arbitrary as alleged by the petitioner. " It is thus apparent that petitioner's averments to the effect that in other cases Banker's Cheques have been accepted by the Commission, have not been denied. The petitioner has filed the Admit Card issued by the Commission to Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra for the same examination, who has also deposited the examination fee through Banker's Cheque. Although Sri Mishra's fee has been accepted and he has been allowed to appear in the ex amination, of the petitioner's fee has been refused. The petitioner has also filed Admit Card issued to him by the Commis sion for another examination for which the fee was required to be deposited in the same manner i. e. through Treasury Challan or Bank Draft, even though he has deposited the fee through Banker's Che que. These averments made by the petitioner remain unrebutted. It is open to the Commission to prescribe any man ner/mode for accepting the examination fee, but whatever manner or mode is prescribed, it should be followed uniformally and consistently without any dis crimination. That apart, the technical breach as regards the manner/mode of depositing the fee should not be made basis for rejecting the application by the Commission unless some prejudice has been caused or is likely to be caused to it. In the present case it is clearly established that the petitioner has been discriminated against by the Commission. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.
(3.) THIS writ petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 25-4-1997 (An-nexure-2 to the writ petition) is quashed. As the petitioner has already appeared in the examination the Commission is directed to declare his result forthwith. In case it is found that the petitioner has passed the preliminary examination he will be permitted to appear in the main examination also. . Certified copy of this judgment may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within ten days. Petition allowed. .;