Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 260 (UTT)

LALIT KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-06-20

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The present appeals are filed assailing the judgment dated 24.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.70 (S/S) of 2013 and Writ Petition No.72 (S/S) of 2013. 2. Brief facts of the case, inter alia, are that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the selection process on the post of Assistant Accountant (Cashier) and were given joining on 20.08.2011. Unsuccessful candidates preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No.1066/2011 before this Court, challenging the selection of the appellants/ petitioners and others, on the ground that the selected candidates were not having “O” Level Certificate or one-year computer certificate from the recognized Institutes. 3. Writ Petition (S/S) No.1066/2011 was decided vide judgment dated 01.11.2011 with the direction to the Director, Treasury and Financial Services, Uttrakhand to appoint a Committee to verify the credentials of each selected candidate, inter alia, certificates given by them, which may be from recognized Institute or University, as given under the said Rules. Meanwhile, a Committee was constituted in pursuant to the judgment-dated 01.11.2011 and the Committee has given prima facie opinion that some of the selected candidates were having certificates issued in their favour from the Institutes, recognized either by the State of Uttarakhand or by the Central Government. However, the Committee, so appointed, gave prima facie opinion against the petitioners and other selected candidates, who have obtained ‘O’ level certificate or one-year Computer Science Certificate from the other Institutes, although not recognized by the Uttarakhand State and Central Government, however recognized by other States. On the basis of the prima facie opinion of the Committee, services of the petitioners were terminated, without issuing any show cause notice. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.70 (S/S) of 2013 and Writ Petition No.72 (S/S) of 2013, which were disposed of vide judgment, impugned in the present appeal. 4. Undisputedly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 01.11.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.1066/2011 (S/S), was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.299/2011. The Division Bench of this court, vide judgment dated 25.02.2012, was pleased to dispose of the Special Appeal No.299/2011, by observing as under: - “5. The word used in the Statue is “recognized”. The mode and manner of such recognition, however, has not been indicated in the Statute. The Division Bench of this court, vide judgment dated 25.02.2012, was pleased to dispose of the Special Appeal No.299/2011, by observing as under: - “5. The word used in the Statue is “recognized”. The mode and manner of such recognition, however, has not been indicated in the Statute. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that any method has been prescribed either by the State Government or by the Central Government to recognize an institution imparting certificate computer course of a duration of one year. That aspect of the matter has not been dealt with in the judgment and order under appeal. 6. The applicants have submitted that the directions contained in the judgment and order under appeal are being applied to all districts by the State Government, and while doing so, the State Government has not laid down the criteria/basis for recognition of such institutions. In the circumstances, it is the case of the applicants that they are aggrieved by the judgment and order under appeal. We feel that since the judgment and order was rendered in a writ petition, where a challenge was thrown in relation to actions pertaining to a particular district and those, who had responded to the vacancies available in the said district, were arrayed as parties to the writ petition, the judgment and order under appeal should remain confined only to that district. We, however, at the same time, make it clear that if the State Government or any other agency has followed the said judgment in relation to any other district, it must be deemed that they have done so of their own volition and not on the basis of the directions contained in the said judgment and order paving the way for the applicants before us to challenge the action of the State Government, if the applicants are so aggrieved. With the observations, as above, while we allow the application for condonation of delay (CLMA No.13559 of 2011) in preferring the appeal, having considered the averments made in the application furnishing reasons for delay and being satisfied therewith, we also allow the application for leave to prefer an appeal (CLMA No.13613 of 2011) against the judgment and order under appeal and, at the same time, allow the appeal by clarifying/modifying the judgment and order under appeal.” 5. We have carefully perused the Rule 8(2) of Uttarakhand Koshagar Subordinate Cadre Services (Amendment) Rules, 2010. Amended Rule 8(2) of the Rules provides that a candidate for direct recruitment, to the post of Assistant Accountant/Assistant Accountant (Cashier), must possess a Degree in Commerce from a recognized university or Post- Graduate Diploma in Accountancy and “O” Level certificate issued by the Department of Electronics Accredited Computer Course recognized by Central Government or one- year Computer Course Certificate from any University or Institute recognized by any State Government or Central Government. 6. In our considered opinion, the said Rule does not say that Institute, issuing one year or ‘O’ level computer course certificate, should only be recognized by the Government of Uttrakhand or by the Central Government. Rather, it suggests that such Institutes issuing one-year computer course or ‘O’ level Computer certificate may be recognized by any State or Central Government. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has placed reliance on the prima facie opinion furnished by the Committee, so constituted pursuant to the judgment dated 01.11.2011. We are of the further view that prima facie opinion of the Committee itself is in violation of the clarification/modification carried out by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 25.02.2012 rendered in Special Appeal No.299/2011. Therefore, judgment impugned, in the present appeal, does not sustain in the eyes of law. 8. Consequently, the present appeals are allowed. At the same time, the writ petitions filed by the appellants/ petitioners are allowed. Order impugned in the writ petitions are hereby quashed. However, it would be open to the respondents to carry out the inquiry about the genuineness and authenticity of the certificates and Institutes who have issued certificates of one-year computer course or ‘O’ level certificate to the appellants/petitioners. If such certificates are found to be genuine and Institutes are found to be in existence and duly recognized by University or Central Government or by any other State Government, then the appellants/petitioners shall be deemed to have all requisite qualification. However, if such certificates or institutes are found to be fake, appropriate action may be taken against the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law. No cost.