There is no bar in intimating the candidates through SMS, more particularly when large number of candidates had to appear in the subsequent process: Supreme Court
In any event, though indulgence was shown in the earlier cases, a line has to be drawn at some stage as otherwise, the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authorities would be meaningless without a time line and the next recruitment process will also get effected since determination of the number of vacancies for the next process will keep fluctuating as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the learned bench led by Justice A.S. Bopanna in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors v. Pankaj Kumar (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6860 OF 2021) (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.5006 of 2020). The brief facts leading to the present appeal is that the appellants had published an advertisement in the year 2015 to recruit Police Constables to the Provincial Armed Constabulary (Male) by direct recruitment. The respondent herein was one of the candidates who had responded to the said advertisement and submitted his application. In order to complete the process of selection, the documents were to be verified and the candidates were to be subjected to physical fitness test which was to be made subsequently as the next stage of recruitment process. The issue presently is with regard to the respondent being unable to appear for the physical fitness test and the verification of documents which he alleges is for want of written communication. According to the appellants, the candidates who were required to appear for the physical fitness test and document verification were intimated by issuing SMS over the mobile phone, the number of which had been furnished in the application. Several other candidates who had received such SMS had appeared and taken part in the process of document verification and the physical fitness test. The respondent who had not appeared, made out a grievance about appellants not intimating the respondent through post. According to the respondent, as per rule, a call letter was required to be issued. The Learned Single Judge though did not record a finding with regard to there being violation or non­compliance of any rule, had arrived at the conclusion that there was inadvertence on part of the respondent since an applicant would not have deliberately not participated in the process of recruitment. The appellants herein, claiming to be aggrieved by such direction issued by the Learned Single Judge filed an intra court appeal in Special Appeal No.366/2019 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has further indicated that there is no dispute to the fact that except for the SMS sent to the respondent no other mode of information was sent and in that view the Division Bench approved the direction issued by the Learned Single Judge whereby an opportunity has been granted to the respondent to appear for the document verification and physical fitness test. After the perusal of the facts and arguments, the Hon’ble Court held, “The process herein had commenced in the year 2015 and the document verification along with the physical fitness test was held in 2018. Several candidates who were permitted pursuant to the order of the High Court had taken part in early January 2019. Since, sufficient time has elapsed thereafter it would not be appropriate to make an exception in the case of the respondent at this stage as otherwise the trickle would continue. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in their conclusion. The order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Special Appeal by the Division Bench are set aside. Consequently, the Writ petition No.693 (SS) of 2019 titled Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors. stands dismissed.”
dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Appeal thereby upholding the judgment and order dated Digitally signed bySanjay KumarDate: 2021.11.1813:51:42 ISTReason:Signature Not Verified 2 the candidates who had responded to the said advertisement and submitted his application. Pursuant thereto the admit card was issued to the respondent and the initial fitness examination was held. In order to complete the process of made subsequently as the next stage of recruitment process The issue presently is with regard to the respondent being unable to appear for the physical fitness test and the According to the appellants the candidates who were verification were intimated by issuing SMS over the mobile phone the number of which had been furnished in the application. Several other candidates who had received such intimating the respondent through post. In that light the respondent filed the writ petition bearing SS No.693 of 2019 document verification and the physical fitness test of the respondent pertaining to his height weight and chest measurement and to declare the result after completing the process. The case put forth was that the appellants had not adhered to the requirement contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh Constable and Head Constable Rules 2008. According to the respondent as per rule a call letter was required to be issued. Since such call letter has not been issued to the respondent he was unable to take part in the Learned Single Judge though did not record a finding with part of the respondent since an applicant would not have that circumstance as a matter of equitable consideration the fitness test for the post of Constable in pursuance to the direction issued by the Learned Single Judge filed an intra the portion of the observations made by the Learned Single Judge wherein an equitable consideration was made has for the SMS sent to the respondent no other mode of information was sent and in that view the Division Bench approved the direction issued by the Learned Single Judge 5. Mr. Pradeep Misra learned counsel representing the appellants while assailing the order passed by the Learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench has contended that test. It is his further contention that the negligence of the further process should be to his own detriment and cannot interfere with the process of selection which has been At this belated stage no indulgence can be shown when is made to the information notification dated 15.05.2018 wherein the details of the process of selection had been furnished. The candidates were required to keep track of the put forth by him herein. It is contended that though one opportunity had been granted as a concession to about 151 process cannot be a continuing one as and when individuals candidates seek to reopen the selection process claim as that of the respondent and the Division Bench had and concluded in all respects in the year 2018 request for opportunity at this belated stage ought not to have been 6. Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey learned counsel for the by the Learned Single Judge and approved by the Division Bench of the High Court. It is his contention that the Rules but no such intimation was issued to the respondent. It is further process in the selection would not be sufficient. He contends that the mobile number would be furnished by the candidates at the time of making an application and in the the application there could be no assumption that the course to ensure proper service would be through postal Bench has arrived at the conclusion that an opportunity is not be jeopardized. He therefore seeks that this appeal be reached by the Division Bench of the High Court it would respondent by recording a finding with regard to the non­ compliance of any requirement envisaged under the Rule or procedure provided in the advertisement calling for by postal communication or any other mode. In that view there is no bar in intimating the candidates through SMS more the subsequent process and majority of the candidates have appeared for document verification and physical fitness test is concerned it is not his case that he had not received the SMS. It is only a technical contention that he ought to have been intimated through postal communication. When a case the appellants have sent the SMS to the very number indicate that the respondent did not possess the said mobile connection as on the date the SMS was sent. Further the argument as put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent that one may not retain the same number after is furnished for issue of postal communication. In a given case the person may not reside in the same address which is is made. In such circumstance it is for the candidate to intimate any change to the authorities since such change or her own interest such intimation is to be made. In the same cannot at his own convenience make request to be permitted to participate in the selection process which has already concluded not having utilized the opportunity which opportunity. It is no doubt true that as contended by the respondent in the objection statement an opportunity was process as indicated in the notice dated 14.01.2019 issued pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions which were filed. It is to be noticed that the respondent had chosen to file the writ petition by merely part in the process on 15.01.2019 and he had not been In that background it is to be noted that another learned Single Judge of the High Court in a similar No.903 of 2019. The order of the learned Single Judge was otherwise the recruitment process undertaken by the and the next recruitment process will also get effected since year 2015 and the document verification along with the were permitted pursuant to the order of the High Court had taken part in early January 2019. Since sufficient time has elapsed thereafter it would not be appropriate to make an exception in the case of the respondent at this stage as 11. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in their conclusion. The order dated 12.03.2019 and the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in Special Appeal Consequently the Writ petition No.693 of 2019 titled 13. Pending application if any stands disposed of