HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 3864 of 2025 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following main prayers:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 passed by respondent no.02 (Commissioner National Education Society for Tribal Students) and also direct to concerned authority to permit the petitioner for documents verification (D.V.) for the post of Lab Attendant. ІІ. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.02 to Vacant/Reserve the one post for the petitioner. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.02 to direct to concerned respondent to decide the grievance of the petitioner in mentioning the representation dated 10.03.2025 in stipulate period is pending before him." 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he has applied for the post of Lab Attendant by the advertisement, which is appended as Annexure No.2 with the paper book. It is also submitted that the last date of submission of form was given till 31.07.2023. In pursuance of the said advertisement, he has submitted his form within time as he has meet out the qualification for the post of Lab Attendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the said advertisement was issued by respondents, Ministry of Tribal Affairs. After filling the Form through online mode, the said department had issued the Admit Card for examination for the post of Lab Attendant, in which the Centre for examination was mentioned at Lucknow and date of examination was fixed on 23.12.2023. Petitioner appeared in the examination and qualified the examination. The Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devansh Misra, Manju Lata Verma, Ram Sumer Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : Purnendu Kumar Singh, A.S.G.I. Rahul Verma .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And Another .....Respondent(s) petitioner was called for verification of documents on 22.01.2025 and 04.02.2025. The information was sent by official e-mails of the department. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not receive the said e-mails as his mobile phone was not working on the first time and at the second time petitioner was not able to access as his father was not well, therefore, request for verification of documents was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner represented his case before the respondent no.2 to verify the documents as he was qualified in the entrance examination conducted by the department, but the same was rejected vide order dated 21.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that while considering the petitioner's representation, respondent no.2 has not taken into consideration the averments made in the representation and the reasons, which have been stated in the representation, for why he was not present even after the e-mails sent by the department for verification of documents, therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 is without application of mind, arbitrary, unjust and deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that respondent no.2 may be directed to verify the petitioner's documents for the post of Lab Attendant. 4. Per contra, Sri Purnendu Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the instant writ petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law. The impugned order was passed by respondent no.2 after considering the entirety of the matter and taking into consideration of all the averments made in the representation. It is further submitted that the process of recruitment has already been completed by the department, therefore, the fresh verification of documents of the petitioner is not possible. He has also placed the e-mails dated 14.05.2025 and 16.12.2024, which are taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for respondents also submitted that the petitioner has been given two opportunities for verification of the documents, but he has chosen not to appear before the authority concerned for the said purpose. He further submitted that whatever reasons assigned in the representation or in the instant writ petition for not appearing before the competent authority for verification of documents, the same cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. WRIA No. 3864 of 2025 2 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and may be rejected with cost. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Purnendu Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, perused the contents made in the writ petition and the documents on record. 8. The relevant paragraph of the impugned order is quoted below for proper adjudication:- "This has reference to the trailing email and representations made by you at NESTS hq on 19.02.2025 & 20.02.2025. As per the records, you were already informed about the document verification schedule through emails dated 16.12.2024 and 24.01.2025 with the direction to report for document verification on 22.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 respectively, and the DV schedules were also published by NESTS on its website. At this stage, it is not possible to accommodate your request to conduct Document Verification further." 9. I have also perused the e-mail dated 14.05.2025, which is placed before the Court during arguments. Paragraph – 4 of the same is quoted as below:- "4. That, further, in response to e-mails of the petitioner, NESTS vide an e-mail dated 21.02.2025, communicated to the petitioner that as per the records, you were already informed about the document verification sechedule through e-mails dated 16.12.2024 and 24.01.2025 with the direction to report for document verification on 22.01.2025 and 04.02.2025 respectively, and the DV schedules were also published by NESTS on its website. At this stage, it is not possible to accommodate your request to conduct Document Verification further." 10. It is admitted fact that the respondent had sent e-mail to inform the petitioner to participate in the process of documents verification, but he could not appear due to certain reasons as stated in the petition. In support of his averments, he does not place any material before the authority concern. The respondent has published the notice on website of NESTS too. It is also informed to the Court that the recruitment process has already been completed. 11. It is settled law that a writ of certiorari is be issued when firstly the impugned order is passed on an incorrect interpretation of the law. Secondly, the decision- making body has acted beyond its jurisdiction. Thirdly, the decision was made without following the principles of natural justice, such as bias or lack of notice. 12. In the instant case, the competent authority has passed a reasoned and detailed WRIA No. 3864 of 2025 3 order after considering the entire facts and material on record and also considered the averments made in the representation, therefore, this Court has not found any ground to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, as prayed. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed, accordingly. September 16, 2025 Atul WRIA No. 3864 of 2025 4 (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad