Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 225 (UTT)

Shailendra Bhatnagar v. State of Uttaranchal

2005-06-30

M.M.GHILDIYAL

body2005
JUDGMENT Heard Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to call the candidates for interview for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) at least three times to the number of vacancies. 3. Contention of the petitioners is that the Uttaranchal Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam invited applications for recruitment of Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mech.) and Junior Engineers (Civil/Mech.). The petitioners were qualified for the post of Junior Engineer, hence they have applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and appeared in the written examination. After written examination the result was declared on 25-01-2005. In the result, the respondents have not disclosed that how many candidates of the reserved category were declared successful. Out of 62 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil) advertised by the respondents they have called 148 candidates i.e. more then 2 candidates for one post, out of 9 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Mech.) they have called 27 candidates i.e. 3 candidates for one post, out of 241 vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil) they have called 299 candidates i.e. 1.2 candidates for one post. Similarly out of 38 vacancies of Junior Engineer (Mech.) they have called 108 candidates i.e. more than 2 candidates for one post, for interview. It is apparent that the respondents have not adopted uniform criteria in calling the candidates for interview. On one hand the respondents called more than 2 candidates for one post in respect of the vacant post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) & Junior Engineer (Mechanical), but on the other hand they have called only 299 candidates for interview against 241 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) i.e. less than 2 candidates for interview for one post for which they have given no explanation. 4. The petitioners have further contended that the respondents have also not disclosed this fact in the hand book of information that only those candidates shall be called for interview Who have obtained upto a certain percentage of marks in the written examination. 4. The petitioners have further contended that the respondents have also not disclosed this fact in the hand book of information that only those candidates shall be called for interview Who have obtained upto a certain percentage of marks in the written examination. If the provisions, as laid down in the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' Posts (outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998, as followed, the respondents should have called the candidates four times to the number of vacancies. 5. The respondents have filed short counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Uttaranchal Peyjal Nigam, Dehradun wrote a letter to the State Govt. on 02-09-2004 for approval of Selection Committee consisting therein six members for the purpose of selection on the vacant posts of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers. The State Govt., vide its letter dated 06-10-2004 accorded approval to the said Committee. And after the approval was granted, the Managing Director, Peyjal Nigam, vide office memorandum dated 08-10-2004 requested the Committee to initiate proceeding of selection. The said Committee, on 04-12-2004 held a meeting and took a decision that only those incumbents who will secure 35% marks (General Candidates) and 25% marks (Reserve category Candidates) in written examination would be called for interview for the post of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer. Annexure no. 2 to the counter affidavit is the copy of minutes of the meeting dated 04-12-2004 and the decision taken by the Committee is as under:- 6. In para-5 of the short counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been submitted that none of the petitioners has secured 35% marks in the written examination, thus they were not called for interview. The respondents have also filed a chart annexure nO.3 to this short counter affidavit, indicating the marks obtained by the petitioners in the written examination which reveals that the petitioner nos. 1 to 17 have obtained 29.50,33.00, 29.25, 30.63, 28.25, 24.63 and 32.38 percent marks respectively in the written examination. It is not disputed by either of the parties that petitioner nos. 2, 6 & 7 are the candidates belong to Other Backward Class. Thus, as per the decision of the Selection Committee, the candidates belong to the reserve category must have obtained at least 25% marks in the written examination to be called for interview. It is not disputed by either of the parties that petitioner nos. 2, 6 & 7 are the candidates belong to Other Backward Class. Thus, as per the decision of the Selection Committee, the candidates belong to the reserve category must have obtained at least 25% marks in the written examination to be called for interview. It is also not disputed that petitioner nos. 2 and 7 were not called for interview. It is also not disputed that only 299 candidates, against 241 vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil), were called for interview. As per decision of the Committee, since petitioner no. 2, namely, Lalit Kumar who has obtained 33% marks and petitioner no. 7, namely, Tak Raj Singh who has got 32.38% marks were entitled to be called for interview as they have obtained more than the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 25% marks as per the decision of the Selection Committee. 7. Another counter affidavit was filed by the respondents in which it is stated that the provisions upon which the petitioners are relying is with regards to the number of candidates to be called for interview must be four times to the number of vacancies. But it is not a mandatory but a directory provision. If is not absolutely necessary, in all circumstances; to call for interview the candidates in the ratio of four times than the number of vacancies exists. In the present case, the petitioners were not called for interview, as they could not obtain the minimum required marks i.e. 35% of the total marks. 8. During the course of argument learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that 25% minimum qualifying marks are fixed in respect of only those candidates belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe but not for the persons belong to Other Backward Class candidates. The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents is absolutely contrary to the decision taken by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 04-12-2004 wherein it is specifically stated that only those incumbents will be called for interview who have obtained 35% marks in the case of general category and 25% marks in the case of reserve category. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the information hand-book which was supplied to the candidates alongwith the application form. Para-4 of the said hand-book deals with the reservation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the information hand-book which was supplied to the candidates alongwith the application form. Para-4 of the said hand-book deals with the reservation. It runs as under:- "The reserve posts shall be filled by the candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC categories of Uttaranchal. The horizontal reservation in each category for female, Ex-Serviceman, Handicapped and Dependents of Freedom Fighters will as follows i. Female- ii. Ex-serviceman- iii. Handicapped- iv. Dependents of freedom fighters- 9. Thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, in view of the reservation clause, is not only contrary to the reservation clause mentioned in the hand-book supplied to the candidates but also against the decision taken by the Selection Committee on 04-12-2004. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that State of U.P. has framed Rules known as the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group-C posts (outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998. 5(4)(a) provides that after the result of the written examination and other evaluations under clause (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub Rule (3) have been received and tabulated, the Selection Committee shall, having regard to the provisions of reservation referred to in Rule-4, hold an interview of candidates. The number of candidates to be called for interview shall be four times the number of vacancies. Since in the present case, only 299 candidates have been called for interview against 241 vacancies of Junior Engineers (Civil), the action of respondents is wholly arbitrary and is not sustainable in the eye of law. 11. As is clear from the decision of the Selection Committee, since the number of candidates who had applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was much less than expected, the Committee has the right to fix certain criteria for calling the candidates for interview. In these special circumstances, the Committee has rightly decided to call for interview the candidates who were able to get minimum qualifying marks fixed by the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had not disclosed the fact of minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidates in each category in the hand-book supplied to them, hence they cannot fix such criteria. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had not disclosed the fact of minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidates in each category in the hand-book supplied to them, hence they cannot fix such criteria. 12. The Court is not at all, impressed with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. The Committee constituted for the purpose of selection has the right to fix criteria for calling the candidates for interview even though the fact has not been mentioned in the hand-book supplied alongwith the application form and, as such, this argument of the learned counsel for the petition is not sustainable. 13. As discussed above, the petitioner no. 2 and 7 have obtained 33.00 and 32.38% marks in the written examination. Both the petitioners belong to Other Backward Class candidates. Since they have obtained more than 25% marks, they were entitled to be called for interview. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in regard to the criteria of 25% minimum qualification marks fixed only for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates cannot be accepted, because this contention is contrary to the decision taken by the Selection Committee on its meeting held on 04-12-2004 vis-a-vis against the contents of para-4 of the hand-book supplied to the candidates alongwith the application form, which deals with the reservation. 14. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to Call for interview the candidates belong to reserve category i.e. SC/ST and OBC candidates including the petitioners who have obtained 25% marks in the written examination of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the respondent's Department. No order as to costs.