Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 48 (UTT)

Rupesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-02-15

LOK PAL SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.6.2017 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the respondent no.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to prepare the fresh merit list after computing the correct quality points of the petitioner and consider the candidature of the petitioner for interview for the post of lecturer (Sociology) in pursuance of advertisement dated 30.10.2016 issued by the respondent no.4 and to give the appointment on the said post. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction by directing the respondents to produce the entire record of the selection process of lecturer (Sociology) in pursuant of advertisement dated 30.10.2016 issued by the respondent no.4. (iv) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that on 30.10.2016 an advertisement was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for different teaching posts including the post of Lecturer (Sociology) in A.N.K. Inter College Gularbhoj, District Udham Singh Nagar. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Sociology). According to the petitioner, the candidates who were below in merit to the petitioner were called for interview but the petitioner was not issued call letter for the interview. The petitioner then moved representation to respondent no.2 whereby he prayed to cancel the merit list and to prepare the new merit list. But, when no heed was paid on petitioner’s representation, he was constrained to file writ petition being WPSS No.263 of 2017 before this Court. In the said writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks. But, when no heed was paid on petitioner’s representation, he was constrained to file writ petition being WPSS No.263 of 2017 before this Court. In the said writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks. Pursuant to Court’s order dated 17.05.2017, the respondent no.2 decided the representation of the petitioner by a detailed order dated 08.06.2017, and rejected the representation of the petitioner on the following grounds, firstly that the petitioner was not registered with the employment exchange before the date of advertisement, secondly the petitioner had not enclosed the certified copy of B.Ed. mark-sheet and thirdly that the petitioner in the same year while doing teaching work has pursued his B.Ed, which is illegal as per law. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4 wherein at para-3 and 5, it is stated as follows: “3. That it is relevant to point out here that the advertisement was issued dated 30.10.2016 for the vacancies in the concerned college, one of the vacancy issued was of Lecturer (Sociology) under General Category. The petitioner applied against the said vacancy of Lecturer (Sociology) through incomplete application without annexing the necessary documents as prescribed by the advertisement. Firstly the petitioner did not annexed the registration of Employment Exchange and secondly he also did not annexed certified copy his certificates, these were the mandatory requirement as per the advertisement, therefore in accordance with law, his application for the post of Lecturer (Sociology) was rejected by the concerned authority and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.12.2016. 5. That it is further relevant to point out here that once application of the petitioner being defective, for not fulfilling the condition of advertisement, was rejected by the authority concerned, then there is no scope of calculating the merit of the petitioner and it has been further came into knowledge of the authority concerned and even the answering respondent/ management that the petitioner has played fraud in getting either his B.Ed. Degree or his experience certificate dated 11.11.2016, inasmuch as, the petitioner completed his B.Ed. Course in the academic session 201314 from the College at Chamoli as regular student in the Management School at Gularbhoj, Udham Singh Nagar from 1.7.2013 to 24.5.2014, the same time the petitioner has to study his regular B.Ed. Degree or his experience certificate dated 11.11.2016, inasmuch as, the petitioner completed his B.Ed. Course in the academic session 201314 from the College at Chamoli as regular student in the Management School at Gularbhoj, Udham Singh Nagar from 1.7.2013 to 24.5.2014, the same time the petitioner has to study his regular B.Ed. Course at Chamoli, after obtaining permission from the Institute where he was teaching. Thus the petitioner at the same time was studying his B.Ed. in Chamoli as regular student, teaching the Intermediate classes at Gularbhoj, Udham Singh Nagar and studying the L.L.B. at Rudrapur, District Udhan Singh Nagar. The petitioner has to clarify the said fraud or illegality before this Hon’ble Court.” 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no.2, wherein at para-7, it is stated as follows: “7. That the contents of para 9 of the writ petition are denied. As per the contention of the petitioner, he passed his B.Ed. examination in the year 2014 while he shows/calculated the quality point of the experience from the year 2011 which is not acceptable, moreover, this the petitioner shows himself in teaching from the year 2011 alongwith this he shows his B.Ed. qualification in the year 2013-14 from Sri Dev Suman Uttarakhand University, Badashahilithal, Tehri Garhwal, thus showing himself in teaching alongwith studying in B.Ed. in the same academic year, is illegal. As per law completing B.Ed. degree, or the teaching experience, the quality point marks are given, therefore, the petitioner is given for 02 years teaching experience 02x02 = 04 marks.” 5. In reply to para-5 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.4, the petitioner in rejoinder affidavit has stated as follows: “5. That the contents of para no.5 of the counter affidavit are not admitted, as state. In reply thereto, it is submitted that the respondent neither gave any information regarding defect in application form nor the application form of the petitioner was rejected, even assuming that if any defect was in application form then the same was curable and removable. That the contents of para no.5 of the counter affidavit are not admitted, as state. In reply thereto, it is submitted that the respondent neither gave any information regarding defect in application form nor the application form of the petitioner was rejected, even assuming that if any defect was in application form then the same was curable and removable. It is wroth mentioning here that there had been irregularity and favourism while in selection process, the respondent no.4 in absence of regular management took over the charge of authorized controller in the school and with due collusion to other respondents involved in committing irregularity in selection process and as such on being making the complaint an inquiry had been conducted by the Additional Director Kumaun Mandal, Nainital and after being satisfying the irregularity in selection process, the Additional Director forthwith stopped the selection process and made her sanction for removing to the authorized controller. All these facts shows that the respondent no.4 by exceeding his power and due to personal interest involve in discrepancy in the selection process, only this is the reason that respondent no.4 being a formal party in the writ petition deeply involved in personal affairs i.e. additional academic qualification of the petitioner.” 6. In reply to counter affidavit of respondent no.2, the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has stated as follows: “5. That the content of para no.4 of the counter affidavit are not admitted as stated in reply thereto it is submitted that the prior to submitting his application form the petitioner was duly registered in employment exchange and document in this regard had already annexed with the application form. The rule mentioned by the respondent no.2 in para under reply says that the candidates should be registered in employment exchange, but nowhere says that the registration should be prior to date of advertisement as mentioned by the respondent no.2 in para under reply. Since the petitioner was duly registered on the date of moving his application form, as such he is fully qualified for applying the post of lecturer (Sociology), so far as the concern of knowledge of convention and custom, the petitioner is Kumauni and permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand and remain reside at Uttarakhand, as such he well aware about the custom of the Uttarakhand.” 8. That the contents of para no.7 of the counter affidavit are not admitted, as stated, in reply thereto it is stated that as per the quality point assessed by the petitioner he is much ahead to the other candidates, in case four marks for year 2013-14 will be deducted from total quality point even then he is much ahead to other candidates. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a government servant and he is only getting honorarium from the school, and had passed his B.Ed. in the year 2013-14, the mark sheet of B.Ed. is already annexed with the writ petition and can be verified from the concerning university.” 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the writ petition, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits. 8. From the very inception, the petitioner came up with a case that he was enrolled with the employment exchange and his representation as well as the candidature was wrongly rejected by the respondents authority on the ground of deficiency of document, whereas the respondents have pleaded in their counter affidavits that the petitioner was ineligible for the post of Lecturer (Sociology) for the reasons that firstly he was not registered with the Employment Exchange on the date of advertisement in view of the condition mentioned in the advertisement; secondly, petitioner in the same year while doing teaching work, has pursued his B.Ed as a regular student, which is illegal as per law. It was the contention of learned counsel for respondent no.4 Mr. Ravi Babulkar that the petitioner has played fraud either in obtaining his B.Ed. Degree as a regular course or the experience certificate which is of the same academic year. According to him, a person cannot be present in two different places at the same time. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire material available on file, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has filed frivolous petition and has tried to mislead the Court. In the writ petition and rejoinder affidavits, the petitioner has pleaded that no such condition regarding registration in employment exchange was mandatory, whereas in the advertisement dated 30.10.2016 it was clearly mentioned that the name of the candidate should be registered with any Employment Exchange of State of Uttarkhand prior to date of advertisement. In the writ petition and rejoinder affidavits, the petitioner has pleaded that no such condition regarding registration in employment exchange was mandatory, whereas in the advertisement dated 30.10.2016 it was clearly mentioned that the name of the candidate should be registered with any Employment Exchange of State of Uttarkhand prior to date of advertisement. In the present case, the advertisement was issued on 30.10.2016, whereas the petitioner got himself registered with the employment exchange on 17.11.2016, as is evident from Annexure No.4. Thus, the petitioner had not fulfilled the condition of the advertisement. Besides this, the petitioner has played fraud in getting either his B.Ed. Degree as regular student or his experience certificate of teaching dated 11.11.2016, inasmuch as, the petitioner completed his B.Ed. Course in the academic session 2013-14 from the College at Chamoli as regular student in the Management School at Gularbhoj, Udham Singh Nagar from 1.7.2013 to 24.5.2014, the same time the petitioner has to study his regular B.Ed. Course at Chamoli and on the other hand, he was doing his L.L.B. from Unity Law College, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar as a regular student on enrollment no.1471390089 in the year 2014. Thus, the petitioner at the same time was studying his B.Ed. in Chamoli as regular student, teaching the Intermediate classes at Gularbhoj, Udham Singh Nagr and studying L.L.B. at Rudrapur, District Udhan Singh Nagar. Moreover, the petitioner has not annexed the permission with the writ petition, if any, sought by the petitioner from the School for pursuing such B.Ed. Degree as regular student. 10. It would be relevant to mention here that upon filing of present writ petition, the Coordinate Bench, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, passed the interim order dated 6.7.2017, directing the authority not to declare the result of Lecturer (Sociology) till the next date of listing. Since then, interim order is continuing, and pursuant to that order, result on the post of Lecturer (Sociology) was not declared and as such that post is lying vacant in the College, due to which, no doubt, the student studying in that College would be suffering. This loss of students cannot be compensated in terms of money. 11. Summing up, I must say that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has filed frivolous petition. This loss of students cannot be compensated in terms of money. 11. Summing up, I must say that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has filed frivolous petition. Now-a-days, practice of filing petitions on false grounds is prevailing in the Courts which should be condemned. In the present case, the petitioner filed the petition on false and frivolous grounds and also succeeded to obtain interim order from the Court, which ultimately resulted in loss of study of the students, studying in that Institution. This frivolous petition not only affected the studies of the students but also wasted valuable time of the Court. The conduct of a person is a relevant factor. A person, who has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material fact, does not deserve any relief from the Court and exemplary cost should be imposed upon him for wasting valuable time of the Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand). The cost, so imposed, shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, Registrar General of this Court shall send a recovery letter to the concerned District Magistrate to recover the said amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, who after recovery, shall transmit the amount to the Registrar General for being deposited with the Uttarkhand State Legal Services Authority.