Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 107 (UTT)

Nikil Kumar v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-02-18

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand-first respondent and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission-second respondent and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent-Uttarakhand Public Service Commission dated 09.01.2020; a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to make necessary modifications in the petitioners application by treating the optional subject as Environmental Science in the place of Veterinary Science; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to undertake the written examination, in the optional subject of Environmental Science, for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest Examination-2019. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short the 'Commission') issued an advertisement on 30.07.2019 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. The last date, for submission of the online application form, was prescribed in the advertisement as 20.08.2019. After a preliminary examination was conducted, the candidates, who were selected in the preliminary examination, are required to appear in the main examination which contains an optional subject. The optional subject, which the applicant intends to appear in the main examination, is also required to be indicated in the online application form to be submitted by the applicant. The petitioner submitted his online application form on 06.08.2019 indicating his optional subject as Veterinary Science. A preliminary examination was conducted, thereafter, on 03.11.2019 in which the petitioner appeared. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation on 04.12.2019 requesting the second respondent-Commission to change his optional subject from Veterinary Science to Environmental Science contending that the Cyber Cafe, from which he had uploaded the application form online, had erroneously referred to his optional subject, in the application form, as Veterinary Science, though the petitioner intended to opt for Environmental Science as his optional subject. The petitioners representation dated 04.12.2019 was rejected by the Commission, by its proceedings dated 09.01.2020, informing him that, in the light of Condition No. 4 of the advertisement, entries once made in the online application form could not be altered later. The petitioners representation dated 04.12.2019 was rejected by the Commission, by its proceedings dated 09.01.2020, informing him that, in the light of Condition No. 4 of the advertisement, entries once made in the online application form could not be altered later. The results of the preliminary examination were declared on 10.01.2020 wherein the petitioner was found successful. 5. Thereafter, notification dated 17.01.2020 was issued by the second respondent-Commission informing candidates, who were selected in the preliminary examination, to pay fees for the main examination, along with their testimonials, on or before 10.02.2020. The petitioner claims to have paid the fees, and to have submitted his testimonials, before the cut-off date of 10.02.2020. He invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present Writ Petition on 14.02.2020 i.e. after 10.02.2020 which is the last date stipulated for payment of fees, and submitting testimonials, to appear in the main examination. 6. Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, for the fault of the Cyber Caf in wrongly entering the petitioners optional subject as Veterinary Science, the petitioner cannot be penalized; the purport and object of appointing candidates to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest is to select the most meritorious candidate; it is only if the expertise of the candidates in the optional subject of his choice is assessed, would the second respondent-Commission be in a position to select the most meritorious of all the candidates; it is not as if the petitioner has approached this Court just on the eve of the main examination; the main examination is scheduled to be held either in late April or early May, 2020 which is nearly two months from now; Condition No. 4 of the advertisement dated 30.07.2019 has no application to the choice of the optional subject; and the Commission is not justified in rejecting the petitioners request for change of the optional subject from Veterinary Science to Environmental Science. 7. On the other hand Mr. 7. On the other hand Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-Commission, would submit that the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 30.07.2019 are applicable to all applicants; Condition No. 4 of the advertisement stipulates that entries, once made in the application form, cannot be altered later; the petitioner not only submitted his application form, but also appeared in the preliminary examination held pursuant thereto on 03.11.2019; it is only thereafter that he submitted a representation dated 04.12.2019 seeking a change in his optional subject from Veterinary Science to Environmental Science; the conditions stipulated in the advertisement are uniformly applicable to all applicants; making an exception in the case of the petitioner would result in several other requests, for change of the entries in the application form, being made; while the applicants are not required to submit their testimonials at the time of submission of the online application form, all such candidates, who were successful in the preliminary examination, were informed, by notification dated 17.01.2020, to download a copy of their online application form, and forward it to the Commission along with their testimonials; the last date for submission of the downloaded online application form, along with the testimonials, was 10.02.2020; the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only thereafter on 14.02.2020 i.e. more than a month after his representation was rejected on 09.01.2020; and the Commission cannot now permit a change in the option exercised by the applicant in the online application form, as that would result in the Commission having to entertain similar applications even till a day before the main examinations. 8. Condition No. 4 of the advertisement dated 30.07.2019 reads as under : 'After submission of online application form no request for amendment or change in the entries in the application form i.e. eligibility, categories/sub-categories of reservation, age, etc. shall be accepted.' 9. It is clear from Condition No. 4 of the advertisement that, after submission of the application form online, no amendment or change in the entries therein is permissible. 10. Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that a change in the optional subject is not mentioned in Condition No. 4 of the advertisement, which is restricted only to 'eligibility, categories/sub-categories of reservation, age, etc.' 11. Condition No. 4 of the advertisement should be read as a whole, and not piecemeal. 10. Mr. D.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that a change in the optional subject is not mentioned in Condition No. 4 of the advertisement, which is restricted only to 'eligibility, categories/sub-categories of reservation, age, etc.' 11. Condition No. 4 of the advertisement should be read as a whole, and not piecemeal. Instead of enumerating all the criteria referred to in the application form, the Commission has, after the words 'eligibility, categories/sub-categories of reservation, age', added the word 'etc.' In effect the said condition prohibits alteration of any of the entries in the application form, after its submission online. 12. The petitioner is a graduate in mechanical engineering, and had applied for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. It is not as if he is unaware of the condition, stipulated in the advertisement, that there can be no change in the entries made in the online application form after it is submitted. The petitioner ought to have been more careful while submitting his application form online, and should have ensured, before its submission that the entries made therein were in order. Having chosen to indicate his optional subject as Veterinary Science in the application form submitted online, the petitioner cannot now be heard to contend that he should be permitted to change his optional subject to Environmental Science, for acceding to such a request would result in a plethora of similar requests being made; and it would not be possible for the Commission to keep entertaining such applications till the eve of the main examination. 13. Having indicated his optional subject, in the online application form, as Veterinary Science and having appeared in the preliminary examination pursuant thereto, the petitioner cannot now turn around and contend that he should be permitted to change his optional subject from Veterinary Science to Environmental Science. While both these subjects have no relation to the course of study undergone by the petitioner, which is in mechanical engineering, an applicant for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests is not required to restrict his option only to those subjects in which he had graduated. While an applicant is free to choose any subject as his optional subject, the restriction placed in the advertisement is that the optional subject, once chosen, cannot be changed. 14. While an applicant is free to choose any subject as his optional subject, the restriction placed in the advertisement is that the optional subject, once chosen, cannot be changed. 14. In Yamini Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and another (order in Special Appeal No. 76 of 2010 dated 08.06.2010; and in Radha Mittal v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (order in Special Appeal No. 79 of 2010 dated 08.06.2010) a Division Bench of this High Court upheld the action of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in refusing to permit correction of the application submitted by the candidate; and in refusing to entertain any request, subsequently made, for correction of the particulars furnished in the application form. 15. Viewed from any angle we see no reason to accede to the petitioners request for change in the optional subject, from Veterinary Science, to Environmental Science. 16. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.