Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 166 (UTT)

Pradeep Singh v. State of Uttaranchal

2004-08-18

J.C.S.RAWAT, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1 Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2 The petitioner herein challenges the rejection letter dated 20-07-2004. by which his form for Uttaranchal Civil Services examination held by the respondent - Uttaranchal Public Service Commission, has been rejected. 3. An advertisement came to be issued by the Uttaranchal Public Service Commission for a number of posts. A preliminary examination for this purpose was to be held," the month of December, 2002 and for that forms "'ere Invited and the last date for the submission was 16th September, 2002. The Petitioner, who was then a student of final year of the Bachelor of Arts, filled up the form 'n pursuance of the advertisement and ultimately preliminary examination was held not on the date on which t was advertised, jut on 28-9-2003. The petitioner also cleared that examination, The final examination is to be held on 26-08-2004. However, before that the Petitioner was informed by the impugned Communication that his form itself was rejected, as he did not have a minimum qualification as per the advertisement. The Petitioner challenges this on the ground that on the date when the preliminary examination was held 28-09-2003. he had already passed B.A. examination on 07-07-2003 and, therefore, he was graduate, which was minimum qualification for appearing in the preliminary examination and it was also the minimum qualification for being selected to the post for which he had applied. 4. Notice was issued to the respondent Uttaranchal Public Service Commission and Counter affidavit has been filed before us alongwith the advertisement, as also the form submitted by the petitioner before the preliminary examination. It is an accepted position that though in the advertisement, it was made out that the examination would be held in the month of December 2002 or January, 2003, In reality that examination has been held on 29-8-2003. . The respondent-Public Service Commission, however, pleads that it was apparent from the advertisement as also the form, that on the date when the form was filled or atleast till the last date when the form could be filled in; the petitioner must hold necessary qualification i.e. graduation. The learned counsel further points out that on the date the form was filled up by the petitioner i.e. 01-092002, the petitioner was not a graduate and it is for this reason that the form was rejected. The learned counsel further points out that on the date the form was filled up by the petitioner i.e. 01-092002, the petitioner was not a graduate and it is for this reason that the form was rejected. The learned counsel also points out in the advertisement itself, it has been made out vide clause no. 18 that if any defect were detected in the for, the said form could be rejected, even at the stage of final examination. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently argues before us that it was not c1earfrom the advertisement as to what was the cut off date for holding the minimum qualification. Therefore, we went through the whole advertisement, which has been put before us by the learned counsel for the respondent-Uttaranchal Public Service Commission. In the opening words. all that is said is that a preliminary examination will beheld for selection of Civil Services posts under the Public Service Commission. In paragraph 2, it is specifically mentioned that for the posts at the serial numbers given therein, the graduation would be minimum educational qualification-. It is true that' there is no specific cut off date and the only cut of date, we fine is in clause 5, which is for minimum age and that cut of date is 01-07-2002, on which the candidate must complete the age of 21 years. However, the learned counsel points out that in the form which has been supplied' itself, there is a specific declaration vide clause 2. The declaration in Hindi reads as under: HINDI TYPING 6. That translation of this in English is I hereby declare that I have read the qualifying conditions Carefully and they are acceptable to me and I fulfil all those conditions". Learned counsel for the respondent points out that this form was signed by the Petitioner on 01-09-2002; when he was 'not a graduate. Therefore, according to the learned counsel on the date when the form was filled or even on the last date of submission of the form, the petitioner was 'not a graduate and he had not fulfilled the conditions of qualification of being graduate. The learned counsel invites, out attention to the claim made by the petitioner that he would be a graduate in 2003. The learned counsel invites, out attention to the claim made by the petitioner that he would be a graduate in 2003. We have seen the form ourselves and are satisfied that atleast in the form there is a clear indication given that a candidate must fulfil the condition of minimum qualification on the' date the form is filled or atleast on the last date the form was to be submitted i.e. 16-09-2002. There can be no dispute that on the date when the form was filled, the petitioner did not fulfil the qualification. He was admittedly not a graduate on that date, We wonder as to how the petitioner could have written that he would be graduate in 2003, because at that time .he had not even appeared in the examination. It comes In the argument that he ultimately became graduate on 07-07-2003. That may be so. However, the fact remains that on the date when the form was filled, the petitioner did not have the required minimum qualification of graduation. Once this position is cleared, it goes without saying that the petitioner had a basic disqualification In as much as he had not passed his graduation examination. A further argument is advanced by the learned Counsel for the Uttaranchal Public Service Commission and he points out that there were Specific instructions given by the Public Service Commission for helping the candidates to fill up the forms. We find that in so far as the educational qualifications are concerned, the candidates who were graduate were specifically directed to fill up the circle in front of the column graduation, and if the candidate has passed post graduate, then he was to blacken circle in front of the column post graduate. If the candidate is both graduate and post graduate, then he was directed to blacken the two circles in front of the two relevant columns. The learned Counsel points out that the petitioner though has blackened the circle, he has, however, mentioned in bold letters the year passing up as 2003. If the form was filled up in 2002, it is obvious that the petitioner could not have mentioned 2003 as the year of passing. learned counsel also points out that it is specifically written in instruction no. 12 that HIDNI TYPING The English translation of this Would be that the candidate must right the year of passing graduation/post graduation examination. If the form was filled up in 2002, it is obvious that the petitioner could not have mentioned 2003 as the year of passing. learned counsel also points out that it is specifically written in instruction no. 12 that HIDNI TYPING The English translation of this Would be that the candidate must right the year of passing graduation/post graduation examination. From this learned counsel says that unless the candidate has actually passed the graduation, he could not be expected to Write the year of passing in the expectation of passing the said examination. From this it is clear that every candidate aspiring to appear for preliminary examination had to be a graduate which was the minimum qualification. The petition must fail on this ground alone. 7. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently suggests that in this case the form was accepted; the candidate was allowed to appear in the examination and as an irony of fate, the petitioner had passed the preliminary examination also and qualified for final main examination to be held on 26-08-2004. The learned counsel, therefore, says that We should take sympathetic attitude and allow the petitioner to appear in the final examination. We are afraid, we cannot do so. By that we Would be doing injustice to some other, who also could have appeared like the petitioner. Rules are the rules and they cannot be ignored. We cannot, therefore, help the petitioner by accepting the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The petition has no merits. It must be dismissed. It is dismissed without any orders to the costs.