Shiv Upendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Shiv Upendra Kumar and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 14, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487506

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/487506
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Sunil Ambwani, J.
Decided On: Nov 14, 2002
Case Number: C.M.W.P. Nos. 22475, 22511 and 22597 of 2001 and 14405 of 2002
Subject: Civil;Service
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil,Service - revaluation - petitioners succeeded in preliminary examination and physical test for selection to the post of sub inspector - on not succeeding in the main examination they challenged the process and prayed for revaluation of answer books - the fact that petitioners have good academic record by itsel...

Key legal issue: Civil;Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shiv Upendra Kumar and ors.

Advocate I.N. Singh, ;V.B. Singh, ;Ajay Yadav and ;Vijay Sinha, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U. P. and Ors.
Reported In: 2003(1)AWC331

Excerpt

.....in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - 3. the substance of challenge in the writ petitions is that petitioners have excellent academic record and that they had done fairly well in the main written examination. the fact that petitioners have good academic record by itself is no......after main written examination, that they have challenged the process. the fixation of minimum qualifying marks for main written examination was known to them and that having appeared in the examination, they cannot be permitted to challenge the same. in union of india and anr. v. chandra shekharan and ors., (1998) 3 scc 694 ; om prakash shukla v. akhilesh kumar shukla, 1986 supp scc 284 : chandra prakash ttwari v. shakuntala shukla and ors., 2002 (4) awc 2657 (sc) ; (2002) 6 scc 127, it was held that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest, and was. subsequently, found not to be successful, cannot be allowed to question the process and such pleas should not be entertained, at, his instance. in the matters of competitive examination of public services, a very heavy burden lies upon the candidate to assail the fairness in the process, which has not been discharged. the fact that petitioners have good academic record by itself is no. ground to call for their answer books for re-evaluation. no other ground was pressed.5. in similar circumstances and on same allegations, writ petition no.2825 (s/s) of 2001, kamlesh yadav v. state of u. p. and ors., has been dismissed by lucknow bench of this court on 11.7.2001.6. for the reasons, stated above, all the writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed.

Full Judgment

Sunil Ambwani, J.

1. Heard Sri V.B. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Vijay Sinha for petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondents.

2. In pursuance of an advertisement dated 15.6.1999 for selections to the post of Sub-Inspectors/Platoon Commanders in U. P. Police and P.A.C. respectively, petitioners applied for the post of Sub-Inspector. They succeeded in preliminary examination held on 6,2.2000, and also in physical test. In the main written examination held on 29.4.2001, they were not found successful and their roll numbers were not reflected for being called for interview in the final result published on 2.6.2001. Aggrieved, they have filed these writ petitions.

3. The substance of challenge in the writ petitions is that petitioners have excellent academic record and that they had done fairly well in the main written examination. They have alleged that the answer books have not been properly evaluated. The examiner concerned did not have knowledge in particular subject and that respondents have also manipulated the examinations moreparticularly the evaluation of answer books for illegal considerations. The secrecy of result was not maintained and in case the assessment was made fairly, the petitioners would have succeeded in the main written examination. Counsel for petitioners has prayed for summoning the answer books for evaluation by Court. He has also challenged the process adopted for selections.

4. Self-assessment cannot be a ground to reopen or re-examine the answer books in selections to public services. There is no basis or foundation for the allegations of manipulations in the writ petitions. The petitioners have not disclosed the source of their knowledge with regard to supposition of the irregularities in valuation of their answer books. They appeared in the examination and succeeded in preliminary test and physical examination. It is only when they were eliminated after main written examination, that they have challenged the process. The fixation of minimum qualifying marks for main written examination was known to them and that having appeared in the examination, they cannot be permitted to challenge the same. In Union of India and Anr. v. Chandra Shekharan and Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 694 ; Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 284 : Chandra Prakash Ttwari v. Shakuntala Shukla and Ors., 2002 (4) AWC 2657 (SC) ; (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was held that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest, and was. subsequently, found not to be successful, cannot be allowed to question the process and such pleas should not be entertained, at, his instance. In the matters of competitive examination of public services, a very heavy burden lies upon the candidate to assail the fairness in the process, which has not been discharged. The fact that petitioners have good academic record by itself is no. ground to call for their answer books for re-evaluation. No other ground was pressed.

5. In similar circumstances and on same allegations, Writ Petition No.2825 (S/S) of 2001, Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U. P. and Ors., has been dismissed by Lucknow Bench of this Court on 11.7.2001.

6. For the reasons, stated above, all the writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Shiv Upendra Kumar and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Civil;Service Same Judge Sunil Ambwani, J.

Civil;Service