TAPISH SHARMA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/4076/2025 · 2025-04-21
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134094 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134094 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4076 of 2025 Petitioner :- Tapish Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Abhishek Yadav,Shivangi Paliwal ,Surya Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1.This court has passed the following order on 16.4.2025 :
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-
"It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly by pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Opposite Party No. 2, i.c., the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board to revise and redraw the final selection list and include the petitioner's name in the Selection and Final Merit List for the post of Assistant Operator (Radio Cadre) under Advertisement No. पपआरपपबप-एक-3 (33)/2020 dated 06.01.2022 and to issue admit card in favour of the applicant for Medical Examination (i.e., the next stage of Selection process) forthwith."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the initial application process, the petitioner uploaded a valid EWS certificate, however, while issuing the admit card, the petitioner was erroneously classified under the unreserved category. Subsequently, the respondents acknowledged the error and permitted the petitioner to resubmit corrected documents, after which the petitioner?s status was duly reflected as EWS. Nonetheless, during the preparation of the select list, the petitioner?s EWS category was disregarded, resulting in his exclusion despite securing 358 marks higher than the 354 marks of the last selected EWS candidate. Thus, owing to the respondent?s own fault, the petitioner has been arbitrarily denied selection under the EWS category. The learned Chief Standing Counsel requests and is granted three days to obtain instructions in the matter. List this matter as fresh on 21.04.2025. Till the next date of listing, one post of EWS category shall not be allotted to any candidate." 2.Learned Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions which are taken on record has submitted that the petitioner while making OnLine application has not filled up the application under EWS category. Subsequently, EWS certificate produced by her is not on prescribed format and thus, the petitioner cannot be granted reservation under EWS category. It is also submitted that final select list has been declared on 26.3.2025 and has been forwarded to the Inspector General of Police for further action and jurisdiction of the Board has come to an end. A perusal of clause(s) 8, 10, 14 and 17 of the advertisement dated 6.1.2022 shows that the uploaded documents have to be on prescribed format, failing which the benefit of reserved category shall not be given. Admittedly, the EWS document uploaded by the petitioner is not on prescribed format. Thus, the benefit of reservation under EWS category has not been given to the petitioner. The action of the respondents appears to be in consonance with the advertisement, particularly, clauses 8, 10, 14 and 17. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed this contention and has submitted that the petitioner has rightly uploaded EWS certificate. 4.A perusal of the record shows that valid EWS certificate has not been uploaded by the petitioner as per written instructions. The averments made in the petition are contrary to the written instructions and the record produced by the learned chief standing counsel.
Thus, the petitioner appears to have been excluded from EWS category as the mandatory requirements under clauses 8, 10, 14 and 17 have not been adhered to, by her. There appears to be no illegality in the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the select list which has already been finalised in the month of March, 2025. 5.The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.4.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench