@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that on account
of furnishing incorrect information regarding the chances availed by the petitioners, they were debarred from appearance in that examination as well
as from all examinations to be conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission for a period of further ten years vide the order dated 22.10.2011
(Annexure 1). Learned counsel also submitted that a coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 30002 of (Ajit Kumar Singh v. State
of U.P. and others) has held that debarring a candidate for furnishing wrong information from appearing in the examination he had applied for
would be justified but to debar him for further ten years from all examinations to be held by the Commission could be disproportionate to the
charge of furnishing incorrect information. Thus, the Court quashed that part of the order which related to debarring for further ten years as
aforesaid. The relevant portion of the order, on reproduction, would read as:
... No legal strength could be put forward on behalf of the respondents as to why such practice is prevalent. Thus the order of the U.P.
Commission deserves to be set aside. The order is otherwise also is not sustainable as previous discussion makes it clear that the proportionate
punishment for furnishing incorrect information in the application form was debarring him in the concerned examination only.
In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed with the following conditions. The order passed by
respondent No. 3 dated 15.2.2010 in so far as it relates to debarring the petitioner from the Civil Services Main Examination, 2009 is hereby
upheld.
The remaining part of the order debarring the petitioner from all the examinations conducted by the Commission from 11.2.2010 for a period of
ten years is hereby quashed.
The order and the memo passed by respondent No. 2 U.P. commission whereby the order of the Commission dated 15.2.2010 and the memo
dated 12.4.2010 whereby the decision was communicated to the petitioner has been adopted debarring the petitioner to the same tune are hereby
set aside.
It is being made clear that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner shall not be allowed to appear in any examination or the
interview which has already taken place and no examination or the interview shall be conducted for the petitioner alone.
2. As the petitioners'' cases are also squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment (Annexure 1), the order as impugned herein, debarring the
petitioners from appearance in the examination in question as well as for ten years further would not be sustainable. Hence, the impugned order is
quashed in part to that extent.
This Writ Petition, thus, succeeds in part.