Sony Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th May, 2021, the petitioner submitted her application form along with the mark-sheet of intermediate examination of the year 2021 and at that time, in the said mark-sheet it was wrongly mentioned that the petitioner had appeared in the intermediate examination as regular student, whereas the petitioner had appeared in the said examination as "private student". Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on an application made before the Board of Secondary Education Madhay Pradesh, Bhopal, the said mistake has been corrected and a fresh mark-sheet has been provided to the petitioner in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner had appeared in the intermediate examination as "private student". Thereafter petitioner has made an application along with copy of the corrected mark-sheet of intermediate examination before the respondent-authority to reconsider the selection of the petitioner for appointment on the said post but no decision has been taken thereon till date and on 7th January, 2021, respondent-authority has selected respondent no.4 on the said post, which is illegal. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel submits that at the date of submission of the application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th May, 2021, the mark-sheet of intermediate examination of the petitioner was not proper, therefore, her selection for appointment on the said post was cancelled. He further submits that as on date more than two months and 20 days have elapsed from the date of selection of respondent no.4, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. He further submits that in case of any interference by this Court at this stage, entire selections which have been made pursuant to advertisement dated 9th May, 2021 on the posts of Assistant/Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator of various Village Panchayats of District Etawah may be put in jeopardy. Even otherwise, the learned Standing Counsel submits that since the petitioner has not made the Village Panchayat Barechha, Tehsil Chakar Nagar, District Etawah, through its Pradhan/Secretary as a party in the present writ petition, which is a necessary party therefore, this petition be dismissed on this ground alone. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully scanned the records of the present writ petition. It is settled law that any petition, which suDers from non-joinder of necessary party is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. (Vide- Prabodh Verma & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors, reported in AIR 1985, SC 167; Ishwar Singh & ors Vs. Kuldip Singh & ors reported in 1995 (Supp) 1, S.C.C.179; Bhagwanti & ors Vs. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana & anr reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 663; Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam & ors reported in (1996) 5 SCC 419; J. Jose Dhanapaul Vs. S. Thomas & ors reported in (1996) 3 SCC 587; Arun Tewari & ors Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & ors reported in AIR 1998 SC 331; Azhar Hasan & ors Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur & ors reported in 1998, 3 SCC 246, Ram Swarup & ors Vs. S.N.Maira & ors reported in (1999) 1 SCC 738; and L. Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur & ors reported in (1999) 8 SCC 287). Apart from the above, considering the fact that when the selections are already over, this Court ?nds no good ground to interfere in the present writ petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.3.2022 Sushil/- (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) SINGH Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad