Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru’ Principal … on 11 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru’ Principal … on 11 January, 2010
Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24207 of 2008

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Utpal Chatterji
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Heard Shri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner
and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

The petitioner claims to have appeared in the selections for
the post of Constable in the year 2005. These selections
were subsequently cancelled on the pretext of the huge
scam in the year 2007 by the successor Government. The
same became subject matter of scrutiny by this Court and
the writ petitions were allowed. A Division Bench heard the
special appeal and dismissed the same, where after the
matter is stated to be pending before the Apex Court.

In the instant case, the claim of the petitioner is that the
petitioner has obtained 126 marks but he was wrongly
indicated to have obtained only 121 marks, as a result
whereof, he could not be selected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is not a
mistake but it was a deliberate attitude of the Selection
Committee in order to exclude the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that this aspect of the
matter has not been denied in the counter affidavit.

I have perused the paragraphs 10 and 14 of the counter
affidavit of Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Deputy Inspector General of
Police, P.A.C. Headquarter Lucknow. The said counter
affidavit states that since the documents have been handed
over to the Anti Corruption Organization of the Government
of U.P. for investigation, therefore, the said respondent is not
in a position to state anything or make any comments with
regard to the same.

In view of the aforesaid position that emerges upon the
pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the claim of the
petitioner has not been adjudicated. This is necessary in
view of the history of the litigation and the background of the
facts, inasmuch as, if any discrepancy is found on account of
the deliberate action of the officials then it has to be inquired
into and the allegations of the petitioner has to be
investigated.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondent no. 4 to get an inquiry conducted in respect
of the allegations of the petitioner and pass an appropriate
order either himself or through an officer not below the rank
of the Inspector General of Police within a period of three
months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order before him.

Order Date :- 11.1.2010
Akv

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *