Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2198 (ALL)

Parmeshwar Maurya v. State of U. P.

2019-09-19

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. Petitioners are aggrieved by non-consideration of their claim for appointment to the post of Assistant Statistical Officer, pursuant to advertisement issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission No.4 of 2014-15. It appears that petitioners have not been permitted to appear in the Interview, as they lack requisite eligibility in terms of the advertisement. 2. The qualification required for appointment includes a 'O' Level Diploma in Computer awarded by DOEACC Society or at least one year Diploma in Computer Science from any recognized University/Institution. The question as to what would constitute relevant certificate in terms of aforesaid requirement has been examined by this Court in Writ Petition No.13091 of 2019 (Shrawan Kumar and others Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission). The petitioners had initially relied upon a certificate issued by one MKCSM Educations Pvt. Ltd., which was not in accordance with the eligibility condition, as interpreted by this Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar (supra). The petitioners alongwith the writ petition have also annexed a certificate issued by Iswar Saran Degree College, which is a constituent college of the University of Allahabad. According to petitioners, this certificate has been sent by them to the Secretary of the Public Service Commission on 7.8.2019. 3. Sri F.A. Ansari appearing for the Commission has placed before the Court a press note issued by the Commission on 16th May,2019, para -2 whereof reads as under:- ^^2- tks vH;FkhZ mi;qDr fu/kkZfjr ekud ls mPp vad /kkfjr djrs gS muds jftLVªs'ku uaEcj@vuqØekad vk;ksx dh osclkbV ij iznf'kZr gS] muds vkosnu i=] ns'kuki=d] izek.khdj.k izi=] rFkk fofHkUu ijh{kkvksa ds izkIrkad izi= vk;ksx dh osclkbV http//:uppsc.up.nic.in ij tkjh dj fn;s x;s gSA vH;FkhZ osclkbV ij iznf'kZr mDr izi=ks dks MkmuyksM dj eqfnzr djsaxs vkSj mUgs Hkjdj muds lkFk nkos dh iqf"V esa leLr 'kSf{kd vfHkys[kks rFkk vkj{k.k ds nkos ds lEca/k esa uohure fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij izek.k&i= dh izekf.kr izfr;ka layxz dj LihM iksLV ;k gkFkksgkFk mŸkj izns'k yksd lsok vk;ksx eq[;ky; iz;kxjkt }kjk fu/kkZfjr dkmUVj ij fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk & 03-06-2019 rd miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaxsA vafre frfFk ds ckn izkIr gksus okys vkosnu i= fdlh Hkh n'kk esa Lohdkj ugha fd;s tk;saxsA^^ 4. Sri Ansari submits that last date for entertaining application alongwith all supporting materials was 3.6.2019, and that the representation made by petitioners annexing additional qualification on 7.8.2019 was not maintainable. Sri Ansari submits that last date for entertaining application alongwith all supporting materials was 3.6.2019, and that the representation made by petitioners annexing additional qualification on 7.8.2019 was not maintainable. Reliance is placed upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Patel Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2015) 8 ADJ 219 , wherein the Larger Bench has been pleased to answer the reference in para-22, which is reproduced hereinafter:- "22. For these reasons, we hold that where the Commission requires the submission of a hard copy of the online application together with all accompanying documents by a prescribed last date and has clearly placed the candidates on notice of the fact that an application which is submitted beyond the last date together with the prescribed documents would result in the invalidation of the candidature, the condition which has been imposed by the Commission would have to be scrupulously observed. It would not be open to the Court to hold that notwithstanding such a clear condition, an application which has not been received by the last date should be entertained. The Commission has given an option to candidates of submitting their applications in the hard copy by either of the two modes, namely by registered post or by personal delivery. A candidate who has opted for one of the two modes, is required to comply with the condition that all the requisite four stages are completed within the time stipulated. The reference is answered accordingly. The petition shall now be placed before the regular bench for disposal in the light of the reference answered." 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds substance in the objection raised on behalf of respondent Commission that petitioners' certificate submitted before the Commission on 7.8.2019 was rightly not taken note of on 21.8.2019, as it was submitted after the last date notified in the note itself. No exception, therefore, can be taken if the certificate relied upon by petitioners in their representation has been ignored. 6. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.