Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 365 (UTT)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-09

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Hindi). The selection was to be conducted by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”). One of the necessary qualifications for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), inter alia, was that a candidate must have Hindi as well as Sanskrit as subjects in graduation and be a post-graduate in Hindi. The petitioner has all the qualifications, but he was not having Sanskrit as a subject in his graduation. Since there was a provision to appear in a single examination, he appeared in Sanskrit as a single subject in graduation from H.N.B. Garhwal University (in short ‘University’) and received the provisional mark-sheet on 26.06.2009 which shows that the petitioner had passed the exam in Sanskrit. 2. The last date of submitting all the documents for the post of Lecturer was 30.06.2009. However, the result of B.A. third year single subject Sanskrit were formally declared on 22.07.2009 (the petitioner having only a provisional mark-sheet on 26.06.2009). The Commission sought proof from the petitioner that he had actually received the mark-sheet on 26.06.2009. This proof, the petitioner, submitted to the Commission on 07.01.2011. However, the Commission had not considered the proof to be valid and therefore, has not recommended the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court. 3. In the counter affidavit the Commission says that the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification of being graduate with Sanskrit as a subject before 30.06.2009, therefore, his case was rejected. 4. The petitioner has also made H.N.B. Garhwal University as party, which is now a Central University. The counsel appearing for the University has also filed its counter affidavit in which they have admitted the fact that they have supplied the provisional mark-sheet to the petitioner on 26.06.2009. Learned counsel for the University Ms. Sonia Chawla, further submits though there is no specific provision in the statute or the ordinance, governing the University for issuing a provisional mark-sheet, yet it is an accepted practice and it is issued on the request of the students and it is in public interest. Learned counsel for the University submits that veracity of the mark-sheet is certified by them, though its acceptance is totally within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The only question before this Court is whether such a mark-sheet should have been accepted by the Commission. 5. Learned counsel for the University submits that veracity of the mark-sheet is certified by them, though its acceptance is totally within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The only question before this Court is whether such a mark-sheet should have been accepted by the Commission. 5. This Court has absolutely no doubt as to the veracity of the mark-sheet or the fact that it was issued to the petitioner on 26.06.2006 by the University, as the issuing authority certifies to its authenticity. In view of this Court, the acceptance is a matter of formality. The petitioner fulfills all the conditions and eligibilities, as required for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) prior to the closing date i.e. 30.06.2009. At least the Commission should have “provisionally” send the name of the petitioner, subject to its later verification. 6. There is also a special equity in favour of the petitioner. Considering all the facts, which are before this Court, the writ petition succeeds. 7. Having made the above determination that the petitioner had all the eligibility and the qualification in Sanskrit as well was valid at the time of filing the application form, let the Commission examine the remaining documents of the petitioner and in case they find that the petitioner is otherwise not eligible, for some other reasons, recommend the case of the petitioner to the department concerned. 8. Let the needful be done in the matter within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.