Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 130 (HP)

RAJESH SHARMA v. HP. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

2004-06-22

NARINDER SINGH THAKUR, S.S.NEGI

body2004
ORDER Honble Mr. Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman: The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 21/24.2.2000 whereby the application of the applicant for the post of Medical Officer, in the department of Health and Family welfare was ejected on the ground that the applicant has not furnished age proof certificate with this application till the last date receipt of application i.e. 24.11.1999. 2. In the reply filed by respondent Public Service Commission has been submitted that the application has not come with clean hand and he was mentioned in the OA that he has attached all the certificates required to establish the eligibility of the post. There is no mention of age proof certificate in the column 3 of the Bio-Data for submitted by the applicant. Meaning thereby, he has not attached the age proof certificate and his application was rightly rejected by the respondent Commission on this ground. The learned Additional Advocate General on 17.4.2003 has adopted the reply filed by respondent No. 1 on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. It is admitted position that the last date of receipt of application was November, 24, 1999. It was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that age as on 1.1.1999 for Medical Officer should be 45 years or below and that application without E.Q. and requisite qualifications certificate on the last date of receipt will be rejected. Each category post require separate application. In service applicants to apply are to the Commission with requisite fee and documents with advanced copy. It was further mentioned in the advertisement that the applicants must passes the requisite qualification and furnish the proof in support thereof by the last date of receipt of applications i.e. 24.11.1999. 4. Inspite of clear cut instructions mentioned above, the applicant has not cared to submit his complete application form. It is, therefore, obvious that the application of the applicant suffered from deficiency and irregularities and accordingly it was rejected. In the reply it is mentioned that 256 posts of Medical Officer were advertised and in response to this 592 applications were received by the Commission and on scrutiny candidature of 113 applicants were rejected for want of document i.e. age proof, compulsory internship certificate, without fee and late fee etc. 5. In the reply it is mentioned that 256 posts of Medical Officer were advertised and in response to this 592 applications were received by the Commission and on scrutiny candidature of 113 applicants were rejected for want of document i.e. age proof, compulsory internship certificate, without fee and late fee etc. 5. The case of the applicant is that as per the specimen form given in the advertisement there was no requirement of submitting the Matriculation certificate or the proof of age. The column at Sr. No. 8 requires that the candidates to fill up the details of academic qualification and since the applicant was applying for the post of Medical Officer, according to him the only requirement was to give reference to the requisite educational qualification i.e. MBS. As such against column No. 9 he gave detail of his MBBS examination. In para 3 of the Original application applicant has stated that subsequent to an advertisement No. V/99 appearing in the Tribune in October, 199, the applicant submitted his application for the post of Medical Officer. All the requisite documents/certificates were submitted with the application. However, the applicant vide memo dated 21/24.2.2002 was informed that his application has been rejected on account of his having not furnished age proof certificate with the application. The applicant is already employed with the Government in the Health department as Medical Officer and he has already submitted the requisite documents alongwith the application. However, after receipt of the rejection letter,"he supplied matriculation certificate but the Commission has declined to call him for interview. 6. The applicant thus taking contradictory stand as on one hand he has submitted that he had given all the requisite documents to prove his eligibility, on the other hand he has submitted that he supplied Matriculation certificate which is also considered as age proof certificate after receipt of rejection letter from the Commission. In Annexure A/1 with the Original Application which is H.P. Public Service Commission Bio-Data Forum Column No. 4 is date of birth column and the applicant was required to give proof of age as on 1.1.1999 before 24.11.1999 as it was mentioned in the advertisement that the application without 1 Q the requisite qualification certificate on the last date of receipt will be rejected. However, the applicant was allowed to appear in the interview on 7.4.2000 pursuance to the interim order passed by the Tribunal. 7. However, the applicant was allowed to appear in the interview on 7.4.2000 pursuance to the interim order passed by the Tribunal. 7. In the reply filed by the Commission, it is submitted that without document it was not possible for the Commission to judge the eligibility of the candidate for the post. 8. One M.A. No. 907/2001 was filed by Shri Himinder Chandel, Advocate for the applicant/proposed respondent in which the reply was filed. But on 3.6.2004 the learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for No. 1 Shri K.D. Shreedhar for non-applicant/petitioner has no objection to this M.A. and the same was allowed and the proposed respondents were arrayed as newly added respondents and on that day the learned Counsel for newly added respondent adopted the reply filed by respondent Commission. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the respondent Commission at length. The learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the case law 1999 Vol-I, SLJ 205, AIR 1997 SC 1963 and the learned Counsel for the respondent Commission Shri D.K. Khanna has cited following case law : (7) O.A. No. 1362/2000 Dr. Vishw Jyoti Sharma v. H.P. Public Service commission. (8) AIR 2000 SC 2011, titled Bhupenderpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others. (9) 1999 Vol-1 Shimla Law Cases page 246 para 24. (10) 1998 Vol-1, SLJ 56. (11) CWP No. 453/2003 Ashmi Ram v. State of H.P. and others. (12) OA 1089/2002 decided on 28.6.2002 Raj Kumar v. H.P.S.C. (13) 1993(2) SCC 429 Dr. M.V. Nair v. UOI and others is of three Judges. The learned Additional Advocate General has cited following case law: 1. 2003 SC Vol.-7 517 Head Note C.M.M. Murthi v. State of Karnataka. 2. 1999 Vol. 8 SCC 304. Shri Haminder Chandel learned Counsel for proposal respondent has cited AIR 1970 SC p. 1099 para 5. 10. In the advertisement as clear distinction has been made between the essential qualification (EO) desired qualifications (DQ) and other requisite qualifications. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the applicants must possess essential qualification and requisite qualifications on the last date of applications. It was further very specifically mentioned that the respondents must furnish the proof in support of requisite qualification by the last date of receipt of application i.e. 24.11.1999. 11. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the applicants must possess essential qualification and requisite qualifications on the last date of applications. It was further very specifically mentioned that the respondents must furnish the proof in support of requisite qualification by the last date of receipt of application i.e. 24.11.1999. 11. Therefore, the controversy hinges around the interpretation of word "QUALIFICATION" and whether the term qualification means only the educational qualification or the other eligibility condition like age. This question has been answered by the Honble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Rajasthan and another v. Fateh Chand and another, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1099. In para 5 of the judgment it has been specifically held that the qualification include other qualifications like nationality and age and other qualifications as prescribed under the Rules, it has been further held that the High Court was wrong in construing the word qualification to mean only the Educational Qualification. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid judgment a reference has been made to some departmental rule that prescribed the requisite qualification for the post. 13. In the present case also the maximum age that has been prescribed in the advertisement is 45 years as on 1.1.1999. Here it would be worthwhile to mention that the maximum age is prescribed by the Public Service Commission on the basis of Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post in question prescribed by the concerned department. 14. Further the judgment of the Apex Court in Seema Kumaris case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances the present case because the issue regarding complying with the terms of the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission was not involved in that case. 15. In the similar case in O.A. 1362/2000 Dr. Vishwa Jyoti v. H.P.P.S.C. where the applicant applied for the post of Medical Officer in the department of Health and Family Welfare and had to attached compulsory rotary internship certificate the original application was rejected vide order dated April 8, 2003 by this Tribunal. 16. The Honble High Court of HP. in CWP No. 453/2003 titled as Ashimi Ram v. H.P.P.S.C., decided on 24.6.2003 considered the judgment of this Tribunal dated May 2.2003 and it was held that the petitioner was justifiable considered in General category as he did not file Schedule Caste Certificate. 17. 16. The Honble High Court of HP. in CWP No. 453/2003 titled as Ashimi Ram v. H.P.P.S.C., decided on 24.6.2003 considered the judgment of this Tribunal dated May 2.2003 and it was held that the petitioner was justifiable considered in General category as he did not file Schedule Caste Certificate. 17. In CWP No. 507/2002 Dr. Anita Padam v. State of H.P., decided on 25.3.2003 it was held as the petitioner did not possess the three years requisite teaching experience before the 1st date of the submission of the application, therefore, her application was rightly rejected by the Public Service Commission. 18. IN case of Rahul Dube v. H.P.P.SC. (OA No. 517/2001) the OBC certificate was submitted by the applicant after the cut of date, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application observing that all the documents are to be submitted before the cut off date. The Writ Petition No. 779/2001 against the order of this Tribunal was also dismissed by our own High Court of H.P. In case of Dr. M.B. Nair v. Union of India, reported in 1993(2) SCC 429 the Apex Court observed that it is well settled that the suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date of receiving the application, unless of course, the notification calling for application itself specify such date. 19. In case of Bhupender Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2000(5) SCC 262 the Honble Supreme Court observed: 1. If cut off date is laid down in the relevant rule it has to be followed otherwise it may be prescribed in the advertisement. 2. If no such date is prescribed eligibility has to be determined on the last date of receipt of application. 20. In case of Gunjan Kapoor v. State of H.P., reported in 1999 Vol-I SLC 246 it was held by the Honble High Court that the certificate cannot be accepted after expiry of last date. 21. IN case OA No. 1089/2002 Raj Kumar v. H.P. Public Service Commission when the application of the applicant for the post of Himachal Pradesh Administrate Service was rejected by the H.P.P.S.C. on the ground that the applicant has not signed the application Form. The OA was rejected in view of the terms and condition mentioned in the advertisement. The facts and circumstances of the case of Mrs. The OA was rejected in view of the terms and condition mentioned in the advertisement. The facts and circumstances of the case of Mrs. Seema Kumari Sharma v. State of H.P., reported in AIR 1997 SC 1963 are different, as there is ho mention of last date of receipt of application. 22. It is argued by the learned Counsel for respondent commission that the public Service Commission is bound by the conditions and stipulations contained in the notification/advertisement inviting application, it will not be within the province of this Court to issue direction to the Commission to whittle down the rigour of the condition and stipulation. The Commission will be within its right in rejecting the applications if applications are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulation contained in the advertisement/notification. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the Commission that the Commission deals with large number of applications. Its staff has to sort-out the applications submitted in proper form, process them and to take up follow up actions. No direction is given to the Commission or freedom to the staff to relax the conditions in the Notification/Advertisement. Laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of request to contain irregularities or omission. Such cases cannot be decided on sympathies or by extending instructions. The Commission with its heavy work load has to adhere strictly to its norms and its work can be streamlined only by strick adherence to the norms settled by it. A case here or a case there, may invoke sympathy or may deserve sympathy as in this case. The Public Service Commission is a high Constitutional Authority. This Forum will normally loathe in interfering with the decision, unless strong grounds are made out like mala fides. 23. In the instant case, there is no allegation of mala fide against the respondent taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the action of respondent Commission in rejecting the application of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal. 24. In view of tire above discussion and the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and this Tribunal also, we do not find any merit in the Original Application and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.