Anomaly and Injustice in the selection of Judicial Service

1.                 That, U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter called as Respondent) got published advertisement bearing Advt. No. A-2/E-1/2003 inter alia in the Employment News dated 28^th of November, 2003 for “U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (J.D.) Preliminary Examination, 2003” for appointment to 347 vacancies for the Post of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) in the State.

2.                 That, I, Machala Agarwal (hereinafter called as the Petitioner) on being allotted Roll No. 045424 by the Respondent, appeared at the “U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Preliminary Examination, 2003”. This Preliminary Exam was purely objective exam consisting of two papers, namely, General Knowledge of 150 Marks and a Law Paper of 300 Marks. The said exam was conducted by the Respondent on 21^st March, 2004. After the Respondent declared me qualified in the said examination, I appeared with same Roll No. viz. 045424 at the Descriptive U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Mains Examination, 2003, conducted by the Respondent from 5^th October 2004 to 7^th October, 2004. The Respondent declared the result of the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Mains Examination, 2003, on 7^th March, 2005 on the basis of altered/scaled marks, after applying an arbitrary scaling formula to actual marks awarded by the examiners examining the descriptive answer sheets of the candidates.

The Respondent declared Petitioner qualified in the said result of the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Mains Examination, 2003, and intimated the Petitioner to appear at the Personality Test/Interview for the said post of Civil Judge on 25^th April, 2005. The Petitioner appeared at the said Personality Test/Interview on 25^th April, 2005.

3.                 That, the final result of the selected candidates was declared on 1^st May, 2005. The Petitioner Machala Agarwal was not being selected in the list of successful candidates.

The U.P. Public Service Commission has adopted an Arbitrary scaling method in preparing the Merit list of successful candidates instead of the basis of their actual marks. The Petitioner Machala Agarwal is also a victim of such illegal and arbitrary scaling procedure. The Petitioner is not being selected only due to this illegal and Arbitrary scaling method.

4.                 That, through the internet, it came to my knowledge that various Writ Petitions (PIL) have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against such illegal and Arbitrary scaling system.

The petitioner had been gone through the PIL, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 172 of 2005, Nikhilesh Joshi versus U.P. Public Service Commission & Anr. displayed on internet at website www.nikhilindia.com thoroughly and totally agreed to it.

After that I had written a letter on the date 9^th May, 2005 to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India requesting for grant permission to join the Machala Agarwal as co-petitioner in the Writ Petition no. 172 of 2005 such that I may get justice for selection in U.P. Judicial Service (Civil Judge) (Jr. Div.) Exam, 2003.

(The photocopy of the letter dated 9^th May, 2005 and the print out copy of the Writ petition No. 172 of 2005 is being attached as Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively)

In reply of the said letter of the Petitioner dated 9^th May, 2005, the Petitioner had received a letter No. D No. 1421/2005/SC/PILC dt. 2^nd June, 2005 by the Section Officer (PIL CELL) of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in which the Petitioner had been directed to file proper application for intervention under Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

(The photocopy of the letter No. D No. 1421/2005/SC/PILC dt. 2^nd June, 2005  is being annexed as Annexure No.3)

In compliance of the above said letter No. D No. 1421/2005/SC/PILC dt. 2^nd June, 2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Petitioner Machala Agarwal had written an Application on the date 16.07.2005 for permission for inclusion in Civil Writ No. 172/2005 (PIL) as co-petitioner by Registered Post.

(The letter dt. 16.07.2005 is being annexed as Annexure No. 4)

5.                 That, In November, 2006, after 1 year and 7 months, Respondent had displayed the marks of U.P. Judicial Service (Civil Judge) Main Exam, 2003 and personality test on its website www.uppsc.nic.in (now it is www.uppsc.org.in). The Petitioner had noted down her Actual Marks from the website of U.P. Public Service Commission, which are as follows:

6.                 That, following is the list of selected candidates, who have got less Marks than the candidate MACHALA AGARWAL:

All five candidates, noted above who have got less marks have been selected. But the candidate Machala Agarwal (Roll No.045424) who has got more marks, total 471 marks, has not been selected. Hence it is clear & obvious drawback in the list of selected candidates of U.P. Judicial Service (Civil Judge) (Jr. Div.) Main Exam, 2003.

7.                 That, your Honour, in the Writ Petition (Civil) 165 of 2005 [with W.P. (C) Nos. 172, 409, 466 and 467 of 2005] in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Sanjay Singh and another Petitioners versus U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & another, the Hon’ble Apex Court has given following direction:

Date of Decision: 9^th January 2007

Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued the following directions:

“Where the aggregate of raw marks in the written examination and the interview marks of any petitioner is more than the aggregate of the raw marks in the written examination  and interview marks of the last selected candidate in his category, he shall be considered for appointment in the respective category by counting his appointment against future vacancies.”

“This relief will be available only to such of the petitioners, who have approached this court and the High Court before 31^st August, 2005.”

(The copy of the said Judgment is being annexed as Annexure No.5)

8.                 That, though I had approached, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 9^th May, 2005 and again on 16^th July, 2005 against the Arbitrary scaling system, hence I, Machala Agarwal should be considered for Appointment in U.P. Civil Judge against future vacancies as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

9.                 That, I have requested to the Respondent for consideration for Appointment under General Category, because I have secured 471 raw Marks, which are more than the Raw marks secured by the last five selected candidates [445, 461, 468, 468, 468] in General category, through the Representation dt. 29^th January, 2007. But no action has been taken. Then I again requested on 11^th June, 2007 and 18^th June, 2007, but no action being taken.

(The photocopy of the Representation dt. 29^th January, 2007, 11^th June, 2007 and 18^th June, 2007 are being annexed as Annexure No. 6, 7 & 8 respectively)

10.             That, in the Press Note No. 188/4/C-3/Writ/2005-6T.C.Date Allahabad 12, Sept. 2007 by Shri S.K. Srivastava, I.A.S. Secretary, Public Service Commission, Uttar  Pradesh

Following is the list of again further selected and Adit candidates who have got Equal or less marks than the Petitioner MACHALA AGARWAL:

All above noted five candidates, who have been selected & appointed in General Category, have got less Actual Marks and less Scaled Marks than the petitioner Machala Agarwal.

The Actual & Scaled marks of the petitioner MACHALA AGARWAL are as follows:

This is clear violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner given under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, that the petitioner Machala Agarwal, who has got more marks has not been selected but the candidates who have got less Actual and Scaled Marks have been selected and appointed.

11.             That, the Petitioner being so aggrieved against the action of the Respondent that I have not got any response from the Respondent, have written a Representation to Hon’ble President of India on 28th Feb 2007 for the Selection and Appointment in U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (J.D.) and in pursuance of the said Representation a reply was given by Sri Ashish Kaliya, the Hon’ble Under Secretary of President Secretariat Public 1 Section, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi – 110004, has forwarded such matter to Ministry of Law and Justice with reference to letter no. P-1/C-101404 dt. 13th March 2007.

 (The photo  copy of letter no.P-1/C-101404 dt. 13th March 2007 is being attached  herewith as Annexure No.9)

12.             That, in compliance & pursuance of letter no. P-1/C-101404, Sri Anurag Bhalla, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice, Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road, New Delhi has directed and forwarded the representation of the Petitioner vide his letter No. L-15012/10/2007 dt.26th April, 2007 to the Hon’ble Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad.

(The photo  copy of letter No.. L-15012/10/2007 dt.26th April, 2007 is being attached herewith as Annexure no.10)

13.              That, when no action was taken and no response was given by the Respondent, then I, had filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35230 of 2007, before the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad, on the date 31.07.2007 for justice & benefit of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

14.             That, the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad has dismissed my Writ Petition by saying that I had neither file proper application nor file a Writ Petition in the High Court.

That, the Judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad, is not true and just. I had written  Proper Application to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the date 16.07.2005(i.e.before 31^st August, 2005) for permission for inclusion in Civil Writ No. 172/2005 (PIL) as co-petitioner by Registered Post. Because till that time the Respondent did not provided the Marks of the Written Mains Exam and Interview, so it was not possible to file an individual writ Petition, although I had written an Application for inclusion as a co-petitioner in PIL, Writ Petition No. 172 of 2005. The Respondent had displayed the Marks of the said examination after 1 year 7 months, on its website www.uppsc.nic.in. So how could I file a Writ Petition without knowing my marks?  I was cautious and sincere towards my selection, and scaling formula adopted by the Respondent was illegal and arbitrary.

( The photocopy of the judgment of Writ petition No. 35230/2007 attached as Annexure No.11)

15.             That, no candidate, among them, who had selected and appointed by the U.P. Public Service Commission, via Press Note No. 188/4/C-3/Writ/2005-6T.C. dt.12, Sept. 2007, had not approached any court for the purpose of questioning the method of scaling system prior to 31^st August, 2005, and it has been proved in the judgment given by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petiton No. 51491 of 2007 Sanjay Kumar Singh & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & ors., Judgment date 17.01.2008.

(The print out copy of the said judgment attached as Annexure No. 12)

16.             That, since the petitioner Machala Agarwal had approached through written representation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 9^th May, 2005 and again on 16^th July, 2005 against the Arbitrary and illegal Scaling system, because the Petitioner is well aware about the judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the name of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1982 SC 149. In this case, Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati has clearly stated that a person or class of persons to whom legal injury is caused by violation of Fundamental right is unable to approach the court (for judicial redress) on account of poverty or disability or social and economic position, any member of the public acting bonafide can move to the court for relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Even a ordinary posted letter sent by the victims can be treated as Writ Petition by the court and the court readily responds to it. Hence petitioner Machala Agarwal should be considered for Appointment in U.P. Civil Judge against future vacancies as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.