Allahabad HC Dismisses Mandamus Seeking Justification of the State’s Actions

Must Read

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and...

Follow us

High Court of Allahabad, on the order dated, 17th September 2020, had dismissed a mandamus writ petition that was filed by an ex-army man who had applied for a post in the Civil Police and Constable PAC Direct Recruitment in the year 2018.

Facts of the Case

On 16th November 2018, an advertisement was given by the Respondents inviting the applications for the recruitment in UP Civil Police and Constable PAC Direct Recruitment. 18th December of the same year was the last date to register in online mode. The petitioner applied online under the Ex-army men quota which was a horizontal reservation to an extent of 5%. And, following the same, he had appeared and cleared the preliminary written examination. On 7th January 2020, he was called in for document verification and physical eligibility test. However, he was informed that the domicile certificate produced by him was dated 12th February 2019 thus, which was issued after the last date of submission of the application forms, hence can’t be taken into consideration. As a result, he was not allowed to take a physical eligibility test.

On 2nd March 2020 when the final result was declared, the petitioner, as a consequence of the aforementioned incident, was not selected for the post. The petitioner had approached the court, seeking mandamus directing the respondents to consider his candidature under the Ex-army men category.

Submissions before the Court

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no need for filing a domicile certificate to seek the benefit of reservation under Ex-army men quota. Furthermore, the Domicile Certificate was required to be filed by only those claiming vertical reservation. And, there was no need for a domicile certificate, as he wasn’t claiming any vertical reservation.

The learned counsel appearing for the state had said that the petitioner was seeking benefit under the Ex-army men category which was extended under 5% horizontal reservation. The same was admissible only to those who are original residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh and to establish that a Domicile Certificate was very much needed. Also, the domicile certificate which should have been issued between 2018 till the last date fixed for filing of the application form as it was required to prove the domicile status of the candidate seeking reservation. Also, per the application form, the petitioner was supposed to submit the domicile certificate in accordance with the aforementioned details during the online registration. However, the petitioner despite claiming the benefit of horizontal reservation did not mention details of the domicile certificate in the online application form. The age of the petitioner, whose date of birth is 1st of July, 1981 and served in the Army for about eight years, would work out to around 19 years by the said formula in the advertisement.

Moreover, the domicile certificate allegedly produced by him before the authorities at the time of document verification is admittedly dated 12/15 February 2019, which was thus issued after the expiry of the last date fixed for submitting the online application forms. Such a certificate could not be considered given the restriction mentioned in the advertisement.

Court’s Decision

Given the above submissions at the Court, the bench of the learned Judge Manoj Kumar Gupta states that there was no illegality in the action of the respondents in declining to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the horizontal reservation category of Ex-army men and had dismissed the petition as it lacked merit.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -