Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 554 (GAU)

Thangjam Bipin Singh v. State of Manipur

2009-08-11

ASHOK POTSANGBAM

body2009
JUDGMENT A. Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Nepolean Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Rarry M. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition may be noticed as hereunder. 2.1 Admittedly, the selection and recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Government College is governed by a Recruitment Rules (R. Rs. for short) framed by the Govt. of Manipur in the year 2002 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as amended from time to time, and the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC for short) in its regulation for such appointments, are incorporated in the aforesaid R.Rs of the State Government. 2.2 On the basis of requisition made by the Government of Manipur, the respondent No. 2, Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), issued the following notifications inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Government Colleges: (A) Advertisement No. 9 under notification dated 18.10.2006 In the above advertisement, 30.11.2006 was fixed as the closing date for issue and receipt of application forms. (B) Advertisements No. 9-A under notification dated 27.12.2006 In the above advertisement, 14.3.2007 was fixed as the closing date for issue and receipt and receipt of application forms and also for determination of age. (C) Advertisement No. 9-B under notification dated 30.12.2006 This advertisement was issued in partial modification of advertisement No. 9 and 19.3.2007 was fixed as the closing date for issue and receipt of applications forms and also for determination of age. 2.3 From the above, it is seen that the 3 disciplines notified under the Advertisement No. 9-B, were already included amongst the disciplines notified under Advertisement No. 9, whereas the disciplines notified under Advertisement No. 9-A are new disciplines which were not included in the disciplines notified under Advertisement No. 9. It is noticed that Govt. letter dated 27.12.2006 under No. 7(2)/3/2003-S/HE issued by the Joint Secretary (Higher Education), Govt. of Manipur, has clarified that the single post in Home Science shown as reserved for S.C. at Sl. No. 8 under Advertisement No. 9, be treated as unreserved as the Govt. It is noticed that Govt. letter dated 27.12.2006 under No. 7(2)/3/2003-S/HE issued by the Joint Secretary (Higher Education), Govt. of Manipur, has clarified that the single post in Home Science shown as reserved for S.C. at Sl. No. 8 under Advertisement No. 9, be treated as unreserved as the Govt. was of the opinion that any reservation should not exceed 50% of the vacancies. There was also some increase in the vacancy in respect of Economics and Computer Science and, therefore, the Govt., as necessitated by the aforesaid change, issued Advertisement No. 9-B in partial modification of the Advertisement No. 9, with regard to reservation and number of vacancies. It is also further seen that the Advertisement No. 9-B has not made any change or modification in respect of Advertisement No. 9-A and, therefore, the number of vacancies notified and fixation of closing date for issue and receipt of application forms remained unchanged in respect of Advertisement No. 9-A. What is common to all the three advertisements, as discussed above, is the essential qualification for the candidates. The qualifications prescribed in all the three notifications are one and same and they are reproduced hereinbelow: Essential Qualifications: (a) Good academic record with at-least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 points scale with letter grades 0,A,B,C,D,E and F at the Master degree level in the relevant subject from a recognized Indian University or an equivalent degree from a recognized Foreign University. (b) Passed eligibility test for Lecturer (NET) conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) or similar test accredited by the University Grants commission (UGC). (c) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Master's level for the SC/ST category. (d) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Ph.D Degree holders who have passed their Master's degree prior to 19th September, 1991. (e) NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph. D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG and UG level teaching. The candidates having M. Phil Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only. The posts advertised are for UG level teaching. 4. However, the candidates having Ph. D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG and UG level teaching. The candidates having M. Phil Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only. The posts advertised are for UG level teaching. 4. Age 35 years and below (upper age limited is relaxable for Government servants appointed under the Government of Manipur to the extent of the period of continuous service put in the post/service and by 5 years for SC/ST candidates and 3 years for OBC candidates and a Government servant who belongs to SC/ST/OBC will get the facility admissible to be a Government servant in addition to the relaxation admissible to SC/ST/OBC candidates. Further, the upper age limited mentioned above has been relaxed by another 5 years for all categories as one time measure by the State Government vide Order No. 3.11.2004-DR/DP(B) dated 15.7.2005." 3. Pursuant to letter dated 3.3.2008 under No. 7(2)/3/2003-S/HE issued by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Manipur requesting the Commission to reduce the number of vacancies to be filled up, a corrigendum dated 8.4.2008-9 (Annexure 13 to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2) was issued by the Commission reducing the number of vacancies to be filled up in some disciplines. However, the number of vacancies notified under Advertisement No. 9-A remained the same and the bone of contention in this writ petition is in respect of the lone post in Environmental Science reserved for the SC category candidate. The corrigendum dated 4.8.2008 does not change or modify any of the conditions stipulated under the relevant Advertisement No. 9-A and as such, all conditions stipulated in Advertisement No. 9-A remain operative and binding to all concerned. 4. It is stated that the petitioner obtained his M. Sc degree from A.P. Singh University, Rawa, M.P., in the year 2004 securing 57% marks in environmental biology and thereafter, he was awarded M.Phil in Environmental Science on 5.9.2005. There is no dispute on the eligibility of the petitioner who belongs to SC community, for consideration of appointment as Lecturer in Govt. College. It is stated that the petitioner, having possessed the requisite qualification prescribed in the Advertisement No. 9-A dated 27.12.2006, submitted a duly filled in application form on 18.2.2007 to the Commission for the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science reserved for SC candidate. College. It is stated that the petitioner, having possessed the requisite qualification prescribed in the Advertisement No. 9-A dated 27.12.2006, submitted a duly filled in application form on 18.2.2007 to the Commission for the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science reserved for SC candidate. Thereafter, by a notification dated 16.5.2008, all the candidates including the petitioner were informed by the Commission that the interview for selection/appointment to the post of Lecturer would commence from 30.5.2008 and as such, eligible candidates were requested to collect their call letters from the Office of the Commission w.e.f. 20.5.2008. Accordingly, the petitioner collected his call letter from the Office of the Commission and thereafter, he faced the interview conducted by the Commission. 5. It is stated that the petitioner was taken by the surprise when he came to know from the notification dated 15.12.2008 that the respondent No. 3 was recommended by the Commission for appointment against the lone post reserved for SC in Environmental Science. It is, further, that the petitioner, on having learnt from some reliable source that the respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite qualification on the cut-off date, submitted an application on 7.1.2009 to the PIO, Manipur Public Service Commission for furnishing the list of Scheduled Castes candidates, who had submitted application forms for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science with date, month and year Environmental Science with date, month and year of submission of application forms and also the copies of educational qualification. When the Commission did not oblige to furnish the information sought for, the petitioner approached the State Chief Information Commissioner on 10.2.2009, who was pleased" to direct the Joint Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission to submit his comments within 10 (ten) days with the justification for denial of the information which was sought for. It is stated that when the comments and justification sought for were not furnished as directed above, the State Chief Information Commissioner passed an order on 27.2.2009 fixing 5.3.2009 as the date for objection and for further proceedings of the complaint. It is stated that when the comments and justification sought for were not furnished as directed above, the State Chief Information Commissioner passed an order on 27.2.2009 fixing 5.3.2009 as the date for objection and for further proceedings of the complaint. It appears that the Commission, sensing trouble due to the above development, informed the State Chief Information Commissioner vide communication dated 27.2.2009 that there were two Scheduled Castes candidates who appeared in the interview held on 6.8.2008 for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science and the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 turned out to be the only two candidates belonging to SC category. It has further provided that the petitioner submitted his application on 8.2.2007 and the respondent No. 3 submitted her application form on 1.2.2007. 6. From the documents furnished by the Commission of the petitioner, there appears to be no doubt that vide notification dated 29.3.2007 issued by the Registrar (Evaluation) University of Mysore, respondent No. 3 was declared eligible to receive Ph. D Degree in Environmental Science at the next convocation and the actual Degree of Ph. D awarded by the University to the respondent No. 3 only on 9.2.2008 with signature and seal of the Vice Chancellor of the University. The thrust of the argument advanced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification on the cut-off date i.e. 14.3.2007 which was prescribed in the Advertisement No, 9-A dated 27.12.2006 and as such respondent No. 3 was not at all eligible for consideration of recruitment against the lone post of Lecturer in Environmental Science reserved for SC. The further case of the petitioner is that in absence of a cut-off date being provided clearly in the Notification, the last date of receipt of application from the candidates shall be deemed to be the cut-off date before which the candidates aspiring for the post should posses the requisite qualification prescribed in the Notification and the respondent No. 3 not having possessed the requisite qualification on the cut-off date, it was illegal and impermissible for the commission to have entered the application dated 1.2.2007 of the respondent No. 3 and allowed her to participate in the selection process. In support of the aforesaid contention, the petitioner has relied upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court and the same shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the settled position of law, the recommendation of respondent No. 3 is liable to be quashed and the petitioner being the only candidate with requisite qualification, in the fray, should have been declared selected for the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science. 7. Resisting the contention of the petitioner, the Commission, in its affidavit-in-opposition, took the stand that in order to have a broad based selection, the Commission took a decision on 29.5.2008 to allow all and every candidate who had acquired the requisite qualification as on 29.5.2008, to appear and participate in the selection test which was scheduled to commence from 30.5.2008, and in fact, the interview for selection commenced from 30.5.2008. Mr. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, has fairly admitted that the aforesaid decision of the Commission was neither notified to the public nor was the same informed or published through any media channel. It appears that the Commission had allowed a good number of candidates to submit application form, who acquired qualification after the last date of receipt of application i.e. cut-off date and in order to legalize/regularize the application of such candidates, the decision, as referred to above, was taken by the Commission on 29.5.2008. The second ground taken by the Commission is that there was no illegality in allowing the aforesaid group of candidates to participate in the selection test even though such candidates came to acquire the requisite qualification after the last date of forms submission or on the day of interview, because, in the past, on direction from this High Court a large number of candidates were allowed to participate in the recruitment test for Junior Medical Officer. The second ground of the respondent No. 2 is contrary to facts and simply not acceptable inasmuch as there was no direction either from this Court or from any other Court directing the respondent No. 2 to allow the respondent No. 3 and of her ilk to participate in the selection test. The second ground of the respondent No. 2 is contrary to facts and simply not acceptable inasmuch as there was no direction either from this Court or from any other Court directing the respondent No. 2 to allow the respondent No. 3 and of her ilk to participate in the selection test. Further, such plea, as discussed above, is not available to the respondent No. 2 inasmuch as respondent No. 2 is bound by the decision of this Court passed on 5.6.2008 in W.P.(C) No. 433/2008 to which the Commission was a party. The aforesaid order has neither been appealed against nor has the same been reviewed and such it has assumed finality. In the aforesaid case, two petitioners who obtained their Ph. D. in the month of October, 2007 and April 2008 respectively approached this Court for a direction to allow them to participate in the selection test as they could obtain the requisite qualification only after the last date of submission of applications. This Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors. has not only rejected the prayer of the petitioners therein but also has given its finding in the following words: From the above decision, it is clear that the last date of submission of application form is the only date of determining the eligibility of the candidate and that the candidate who acquires requisite qualification after the last date of submission of application form is not an eligible candidate for the post so advertised. That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above case, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner were not qualified on the closing date of submission of application form, they have no enforceable right in law, hence, the petition has to be dismissed being devoid of merit." 8. The respondent No. 3 whose recommendation is under challenge in the instant writ petition, filed an affidavit wherein an attempt was made to bring home the contention that the respondent No. 3 had already acquired the requisite qualification before the cut off date i.e. 14.3.2007. The respondent No. 3 whose recommendation is under challenge in the instant writ petition, filed an affidavit wherein an attempt was made to bring home the contention that the respondent No. 3 had already acquired the requisite qualification before the cut off date i.e. 14.3.2007. To substantiate her contention, the respondent No. 3 relied upon some letters issued by her guide and latest being the one dated 4.3.2009, which runs as follows: UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE. No. MG/ES/Misc/2008-2009 dated 4.3.2009 MANASAGANGOTR MYSORE 570 006. Dr. S.L. Belagali M.Sc. Ph.D (England) Professor and Chairman. TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that, Misc. Oinam Jayalakshmi Devi Ph.D. reports came before 12 February, 2007. The conduct of Viva voce examination was on 12th February, 2007. From the date of viva voce examination, the candidates can utilize this certificate as the confirmation of the award of Ph.D. Degree until the Register (evaluation) issues the official certificates. Sd/- (Dr. S.L. Belagali) Professor, Chairman and guide. 9. In support of the above contention, the respondent No. 3 also relied upon some other correspondences/communications said to have been issued by the Deputy Registrar (Evaluation), Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. However, to a pointed query from the Court as to whether there is any Statute, Rule, guideline or ordinance for determination of the date of award of Ph.D. Degree in the Mysore University from where the respondent No. 3 claimed to have obtained her Ph.D. Degree, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 could not produce any Statute, regulation, Rule, bye-law or ordinance of Mysore University to establish and substantiate the contention that the date of viva-voce or the date of evaluation should be treated/taken as the date of award of Ph.D. Degree. Admittedly, the competent authority i.e. the Registrar, Mysore University declared on 29.3.2007 that the respondent No. 3 as eligible to receive the Ph.D. Degree in the next convocation whereas the Ph.D. Degree was actually awarded on 9.2.2008. In both the cases, either the date of declaration of the date of receipt of Ph.D. Degree, indisputedly, they are all after the closing date of forms submission as notified in the Advertisement No. 9-A dated 27.12.2006. 10. In both the cases, either the date of declaration of the date of receipt of Ph.D. Degree, indisputedly, they are all after the closing date of forms submission as notified in the Advertisement No. 9-A dated 27.12.2006. 10. In the backdrop of the factual premises as discussed above and on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is to examine and decide what would be the cut-off date in the instant case. This issue may have to be decided with reference to facts associated with the case and also keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter. The second issue would be whether the Commission has jurisdiction and competency to change the cut-off date in the manner indicated above and certain application from candidates who did not possess the requisite qualification, prescribed in the Notification for recruitment, on the cut-off date and if the answer is in the negative, what would be the legal consequences and the relief to be granted in the case. 11. As already discussed above, the post and discipline involved in the instant case is the one post of Lecturer in Environmental Science, reserved for S.C. and notified on 27.12.2006 under Advertisement No. 9-A and Advertisement No. 9-A not having been modified in its contents and conditions stipulated therein, by any subsequent Notification, last date of submission of forms and determination of age remained unchanged i.e. 14.3.2007. It is noticed from the records that in the first advertisement No. 9, the directions of time between the date of notification and the last date of submission of forms is 42 days whereas in the Advertisement No. 9-A, the difference of time between the date of notification and the last date of submission of forms is 76 days i.e. almost the double of the time provided in the first advertisement. In other words, the Commission has taken a very liberal view in the matter of granting time in respect of those candidates aspiring to participate in the selection test against the disciplines covered by Advertisement No. 9-A. With regard to first issue, it is necessary to consider and decide that in absence of a clear cut-off date specified in the relevant Notification, whether "14.3.2007" which was the date fixed in the Notification as the last/closing date for issue and receipt of application forms, should be taken as the cut-off date or not and this is the precise issue to be addressed in the instant case. It appears that the issue is no longer res Integra in view of the affirmative decision rendered by the Apex Court in (2007) 4 SCC 54 , Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India. The Apex Court held that in absence of a cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date of filing of the application must be considered as the cut-off date. It is further held that possession of requisite educational qualification is mandator and if a candidate does not hold the requisite qualification on the cut-off date, such candidate is not eligible for the post in question. But if a candidate without requisite qualification on the cut-off date is allowed to participate successfully in the selection test followed by appointment to the post in question, such appointment is illegal and shall be treated as non est in the eye of law. (Emphasis is mine) In the aforesaid case, the appellant applied for the post on 30.5.1995, on which date he had not completed his M.Phil in Sharir Kriya which was the educational qualification prescribed in the Notification. But his application was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Professor and Head of the Department, Banaras Hindu University. The appellant therein passed the examination only on 30.5.1995 but he was allowed to appear before the Selection Committee despite the fact that he did not hold the requisite qualification till the date of filing of such application. The appellant therein was selected, offered appointment and joined the post. However, after having discussed various decisions on the subject matter, the Apex Court held in the above cited case that the appointment being illegal, the same should be treated as non est in the eye of law. The appellant therein was selected, offered appointment and joined the post. However, after having discussed various decisions on the subject matter, the Apex Court held in the above cited case that the appointment being illegal, the same should be treated as non est in the eye of law. The Apex Court has also thoroughly discussed the decision rendered in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, where the correctness of the majority decision rendered in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611, Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, was questioned and discussed and the finding reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 (supra), was reviewed by holding that permitting a candidate who did not possess the requisite qualification on the cut-off date but had acquired the same before holding the interview, is impermissible and illegal and the decision rendered in 1993 Supp (supra) was held as unsustainable as it amounted to a clear error of law. As against the above prosecution of law, no argument is advanced by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 12. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, this Court has already held in WP(C) 433/2008 that determination of eligibility of a candidate should be on the basis of last date of submission of application form and any candidate who acquired the requisite qualification after the last date of application form was not eligible for the post so advertised. It is to be noted that the subject matter of the aforesaid case i.e. recruitment of college Lecturer under the Notification referred to above, is also the subject matter now under adjudication before this Court. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid judgment of this Court was passed on 5.6.2008 whereas the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 2, in the instant case, was filed on 6.1.2009. Thus, the plea taken by the respondent No. 2 in its affidavit, as discussed above, is contrary to the finding of the Court recorded in the aforesaid case and, as such, the same is somewhat contemptuous inasmuch as the judgment and orders passed in the aforesaid WP(C) No. 433/2008 is binding upon the respondent No. 2, more so, in absence of any modification or reversal of the same by a Division Bench of this Court or by any other superior Court. Considering the decision rendered in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (supra), and also the finding recorded by this Court as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the cut-off date for submission of forms in the instant case is and shall be 14.3.2007 as notified on 27.12.2006 under Advertisement No. 9-A. Thus, any candidate who wanted to participate in the selection test against the disciplines notified under Advertisement No. 9-A, should have possessed the requisite qualification prescribed in the notification before the cut-off date and as such, acceptance of application form of respondent No. 3 and subsequently allowing her to participate in the selection test for recruitment against the reserved post of lecturer in Environmental Science, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed above. Thus, the first issue is answered in the manner indicated above it and accordingly, it is held that the respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification on 14.3.2007 which is the relevant cut-off date in the instant case. 13. It is pertinent to mention that both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 took a common stand that the petitioner was barred from challenging the result of the selection test as the petitioner himself had participated in the selection test without a murmur. Though the respondents, initially, tried to build up an argument of this issue by citing case laws, the issue was not pressed further when it was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that what was being questioned in the instant case, was the eligibility of the respondent No. 3 on the cut-off date, not the methodology adopted in conducting the selection test. It is true that the petitioner had never questioned the methodology adopted by the Commission in conducting the selection test and as such, the issue has no relevancy for a decision of the Court. It is true that the petitioner had never questioned the methodology adopted by the Commission in conducting the selection test and as such, the issue has no relevancy for a decision of the Court. One vital aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the respondent No. 2 has stated nowhere in its affidavit that the respondent No. 3 did possess the requisite qualification before the last date of submission of forms and the only explanation given by the respondent No. 2 is that in order to have a wider selection and also on consideration of the time gap between one recruitment to another recruitment, a decision was taken by the Commissions to allow all the candidates who acquired the requisite qualification as on 29.5.2009 or on the date of interview, to participate in the selection test thereby implying that the case of the respondent No. 3 was covered by the decision taken on 29.5.2008. No other reason is discernible from the pleading of the respondent No. 2 or from the file No. 7/12/2006-MPS/CD/(DR) produced by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Thus, the arguments sought to be built up by the respondent No. 3 that she had already acquired requisite qualification before the last date of submission of forms is not supported by the Commission and the decision taken on 29.5.2009 would mean and be construed to mean only to help the case of the respondent No. 3 and of her ilk, who submitted forms without qualification on the cut-off date, to participate in the selection test. 14. With regard to the issue No. 2 it is for the respondent No. 2 to establish and substantiate that the Commission has the necessary statutory or authorization by any standing order or instruction from the Government to take the aforesaid decision dated 29.5.2008 and that too without any publication for information to the general public. When confronted with the question of the very source of power of the Commission in this regard, Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, fairly submits that there is no statute, standing order authorizing the respondent No. 2 to take the aforesaid decision dated 29.5.2008 and the reason for this decision could be best found in the relevant file placed before the Court. Lalit Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, fairly submits that there is no statute, standing order authorizing the respondent No. 2 to take the aforesaid decision dated 29.5.2008 and the reason for this decision could be best found in the relevant file placed before the Court. On perusal of the File No. 7/12/2006-MPS/CD/(DR), I do not find any thing to indicate that this aspect was ever considered by the Commission and there is complete silence, in the file, on this aspect of the matter. Thus, it is the considered view of this Court that the decision taken on 29.5.2008 i.e. one day before the commencement of the selection test, to allow and all and every candidates who acquired the requisite qualification either on 29.5.2008 or on the date of interview, as pleaded in the affidavit, irrespective of the closing date for receipt of application forms, is wholly arbitrary and unsupported by any Statute, Rules and Regulation. As noticed above, the aforesaid decision taken on 29.5.2008 was never published nor was the same notified to the public and possibly, a large number of candidates, who acquired the requisite qualifications after the closing date of receipt of application forms but before the interview, could have been left out from participating in the interview due to non publication of the decision referred to above. In the circumstances and on consideration of the materials on record and the pleading of the parties, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Commission has not only exceeded its jurisdiction but also has acted without authority and mandate of law in taking the decision dated 29.5.2008, as referred to above, and as such the same shall be treated as illegal and not non est in the eye of law. Thus, the second issue is answered in the negative. However, on overall consideration of the matter, it is felt that a word of caution be placed on record Public Service Commission being a constitutional body entrusted with the task responsibility of recruitment to high post under the State Government as well as the post under State undertaking, wherever it is applicable, ought to be transparent and scrupulous in all its acts and deeds so that public confidence reposed in it, is not lost or eroded. 15. 15. In view of the findings recorded by the Court on the issues formulated above in the light of the discussions made above, it was illegal and impermissible for the Commission to have accepted the application form of the respondent No. 3 and allowed her to participate in the selection process. Accordingly, the recommendation of the respondent No. 3 for appointment as Lecturer in Environmental Science against the lone SC quote under Notification dated 15.12.2008 under No. 7.12.2006/MPSC/DR issued by the Registrar of the Commission is hereby quashed as illegal and unsustainable in law. It is further directed that the petitioner being the only qualified SC candidate for appointment against the reserved quota of SC in Environmental Science shall be declared to have been recommended by the respondent No. 2 provided the petitioner could secure the cut-off mark fixed for SC candidate, if there be any. If the petitioner could not be declared selected for want of securing the cut-off mark, the reasons for the same must be communicated to the petitioner. The above direction shall be complied with by the Commission within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of this order. In case, the petitioner is recommended for appointment against the reserved post of Lecturer in Environmental Science, the respondent No. 1 shall issue the necessary appointment order within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of recommendation by the respondent-No. 2, as directed above. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.