Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 288 (UTT)

DHARMENDRA KUMAR RAJPOOT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-04-23

N.S.DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner, holding a Bachelors degree in Chemical Technology and Plastic Technology from Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur, submitted his application for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Rubber and Plastic Technology) in Government Polytechnics, Uttarakhand pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 16.04.2015. Out of three posts of Lecturer (Rubber and Plastic Technology), one post was reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner belonged to the General category. 3. On declaration of the result of the Screening Test on 09.02.2016, the petitioner was declared disqualified on the ground that he had secured 33.5 marks against the minimum cut-off marks of 64 prescribed for General category candidates. 09 candidates were found to have obtained the minimum cut-off marks in the Screening Test and, as such, were called for verification of their original documents. 4. On the rejection of the candidature of one such candidate, namely, Mr. Achal Kumar Pathik, on the ground that he did not possess the required qualifications, the said candidate invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 358 of 2017. A Division Bench of this Court, by its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 358 of 2017 dated 30.08.2018, observed that Note 1 to Clause 4(1) of the advertisement had not been properly considered by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission while taking the impugned decision; the latter half of Note 1 to Clause 4(1) of the advertisement dealt with a situation where no candidate, possessing Bachelors Degree in the concerned subject, was available; in such a case candidates, who had passed graduation with the concerned subject as optional or special subject, could also be considered; and this aspect had been overlooked by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission while taking the decision. The impugned order of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission dated 11.05.2017, rejecting the candidature of Mr. Achal Kumar Pathik, was set aside and the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission was directed to reconsider the question of eligibility of candidates, including Mr. The impugned order of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission dated 11.05.2017, rejecting the candidature of Mr. Achal Kumar Pathik, was set aside and the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission was directed to reconsider the question of eligibility of candidates, including Mr. Achal Kumar Pathik, in the light of Note 1 to Clause 4 (1) of the advertisement within a period of four weeks. 5. The fact that Mr. Achal Kumar Pathik had succeeded in the Screening Test is not in dispute. The stand of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is that only candidates, who secured the minimum cut-off marks in the screening test, were called for verification of their original documents in the ratio of 1:15; the Rules required the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to call 30 qualified General category candidates for verification of their original documents; it is evident, from the result of the Screening Test, that only 09 candidates were found successful, and had obtained the minimum cut-off marks; it is only the original documents of these 09 candidates, which the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is required to examine; and it is only if these 09 candidates are found to possess the prescribed qualification, would they be called for interview and considered for selection to the post of Lecturer. 6. While fairly stating that the petitioner did not secure the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for qualifying in the screening test, Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's apprehension is that unqualified candidates (candidates who do not possess the prescribed qualifications in terms of the advertisement) may well be selected and appointed as Lecturers. 7. This apprehension, expressed on behalf of the petitioner, is, as at present, unfounded. All that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has done is to call the aforesaid 09 candidates, who qualified in the screening test, for verification of their the original documents, and is in the process of short-listing eligible candidates for interview in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 358 of 2017 dated 30.08.2018. If any candidate, who does not fulfill the prescribed qualifications, is later appointed, it is always open to the petitioner to question the said appointment in duly constituted legal proceedings. If any candidate, who does not fulfill the prescribed qualifications, is later appointed, it is always open to the petitioner to question the said appointment in duly constituted legal proceedings. That does not, however, justify the petitioner interdicting the entire process of selection at this stage, more so when he did not obtain the minimum cut-off marks of 64, in the Screening Test, to be called for verification of his original documents. The petitioner, admittedly, got 35.05 marks which is far below the minimum cut-off marks of 64. 8. We see no reason, therefore, to interdict the selection process at the behest of a candidate, who did not even secure the minimum cutoff marks for qualifying in the Screening Test. 9. Leaving it open to the petitioner, in case it is found later that the candidate selected and appointed as a Lecturer did not possess the requisite qualifications, to question the same in appropriate legal proceedings, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.