Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 171 (UTT)

SANGEETA RANI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2020-03-03

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Counsel for respondent no.3, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the case, and to quash the notification dated 29.01.2020, in so far as it related to the selection of Mr. Chandresh; and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant 10% bonus marks, of the total marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview, for her experience of teaching as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college. 3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner possesses the educational qualification of a Masters' Degree in Education with NET. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 04.08.2017 inviting applications, for appointment in different subjects, for 877 vacant posts of Assistant Professors in the Government Degree Colleges of the State of Uttarakhand. The advertisement stipulated, at Sl. No.17, that 4 posts of Assistant Professors B.Ed. (Technical Course) Hindi were also available of which 1 post was reserved for the S.C. Category. 4. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category. In terms of the advertisement, she applied on-line for the said post, and since she had also applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), she submitted another on-line application form seeking appointment to the said post also. The petitioner, having qualified in the screening test, was called for interview. She claims to have submitted her certificates, in proof of her educational qualification, her preferential qualification, reservation and experience certificate of 10 months in a Government Degree College, to the Interview Board, and contends that she is entitled for 10% bonus marks, of the total marks secured by her in the interview, towards preferential qualification. The Public Service Commission published the list of marks, secured by the selected candidates in the interview, on 29.01.2020. While the marks secured by the petitioner was shown as 59, the marks secured by Chandresh, who was selected for the post of Assistant Professor B.Ed. (Technical Course) Hindi in the S.C. Category, was recorded as 60.18 marks. The Public Service Commission published the list of marks, secured by the selected candidates in the interview, on 29.01.2020. While the marks secured by the petitioner was shown as 59, the marks secured by Chandresh, who was selected for the post of Assistant Professor B.Ed. (Technical Course) Hindi in the S.C. Category, was recorded as 60.18 marks. The petitioner contends that failure on the part of the respondents to award her 10% bonus marks, of the total marks she secured in the interview, had deprived her of the opportunity of being selected to the post of Assistant Professor in the place of Mr. Chandresh, necessitating her having to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the petitioner was not well-versed in filling up the on-line form, she had, by oversight, mentioned ‘No' against the column of ‘Preferential Education Qualification'; she had, however, indicated in the said application form submitted by her on-line, that she had 10 months' experience as an Assistant Professor; in the other on-line application form submitted by her, seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Education), she had indicated that she had 10 months experience as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college; the information furnished therein ought to have been taken into consideration by the Public Service Commission in determining whether she had the requisite experience of having worked for 10 months in a government degree college; while considering her candidature, for the post of Assistant Professor B.Ed.(Hindi), the petitioner had made available a copy of the experience certificate to the Interview Board; and the action of respondent in selecting Mr. Chandresh, and in rejecting her candidature, is arbitrary and illegal, more so since Mr. Chandresh was given marks for having a similar experience as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college. 6. On the other hand Mr. Chandresh, and in rejecting her candidature, is arbitrary and illegal, more so since Mr. Chandresh was given marks for having a similar experience as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college. 6. On the other hand Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, would submit that the advertisement made it clear that the information, furnished in the on-line application form, would alone be taken into consideration, and no candidate would be permitted to correct the entries in the application form later; both in terms of the Uttaranchal Higher Education (Group ‘A') Service Rules, 2003, and the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, experience as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college is a preferential qualification; the applicants were required to specify the preferential qualification, which they possessed, in their on-line application form; failure on the part of the petitioner to specify her preferential qualification had resulted in her being considered as not possessing any preferential qualification; she was, therefore, held disentitled to claim the bonus marks of 10%; the mere fact that she had placed her experience certificate before the Interview Board, after having failed to specify these particulars in her on-line application form, would not justify the Public Service Commission awarding her bonus marks; the petitioner has not even impleaded Mr. Chandresh as a party-respondent in the present writ petition; it is not even her case that bonus marks had been awarded to Mr. Chandresh without his having claimed to possess the preferential qualification in the on-line application form submitted by him; and the very fact that the petitioner had, in the on-line application form submitted by her for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), specified that she had 10 months experience as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college, would belie her claim of being unaware of how to fill up the on-line application form; and since the conditions stipulated in the advertisement is applied uniformly to all candidates, failure of the petitioner to claim the benefit of preferential qualification, in the on-line application form submitted by her, disentitled her from being granted bonus marks towards preferential qualification. 7. The advertisement, issued by the State Public Service Commission, requires all columns of the application form, submitted on-line, to be filled up correctly. All the applicants were informed that any error therein would not be permitted to be corrected later. 7. The advertisement, issued by the State Public Service Commission, requires all columns of the application form, submitted on-line, to be filled up correctly. All the applicants were informed that any error therein would not be permitted to be corrected later. The applicants were required to furnish details of both their educational and preferential qualifications. One among the 4 preferential qualifications is that the applicant must have worked as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college in the State of Uttarakhand. Such applicants were entitled for a maximum of 10% bonus marks. In the on-line application form submitted by her, for the post of Assistant Professor, B.Ed. (Hindi), the petitioner had, against the column relating to preferential educational qualification, written ‘No'. The petitioner had, thereby, intimated the Public Service Commission that she did not have any preferential qualification. Even in the column relating to ‘experience', the petitioner has merely stated that she had 10 months' experience as an Assistant Professor. The conditions stipulated in the advertisement, for being granted bonus marks towards preferential qualification, is that the applicant should have worked as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college within the State of Uttarakhand, and not in any other college. 8. The application form, submitted by the petitioner online, neither disclosed that she possessed any preferential qualification nor does it disclose that she had 10 months' experience as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college. By merely mentioning that she had 10 months' experience as an Assistant Professor, the petitioner cannot claim to have informed the Commission that she possessed the preferential qualification stipulated in the advertisement, as experience as an Assistant Professor in a private degree college is not a preferential qualification. The conditions stipulated in the advertisement, with regards preferential qualification, is in accordance with Rule 9 of the Uttaranchal Higher Education (Group ‘A') Service Rules, 2003 which stipulates that, other things being equal, a candidate shall be given preferential treatment, in direct recruitment, who has worked as a visiting lecturer in a Government College of the State. The petitioner was required to state, in the on-line application form submitted by her, that she possessed the preferential educational qualification, and she had experience of ten months as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was required to state, in the on-line application form submitted by her, that she possessed the preferential educational qualification, and she had experience of ten months as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college in the State of Uttarakhand. It is only such candidates who had informed the Public Service Commission, in their application submitted on-online, that they have the requisite preferential qualification and experience of having worked as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college in the State of Uttarakhand, who were alone entitled to be awarded upto a maximum of 10% bonus marks. As the petitioner had failed to intimate the Public Service Commission in this regard, her having subsequently furnished proof, of possessing the preferential qualification of working as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college for 10 months, to the Interview Board is of no consequence. 9. As rightly pointed out by Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, the very fact that the petitioner had filled up the on-online application form, for the post of Assistant Professor (Education) properly, belies her claim of ignorance regarding the manner in which an application form should be filled up and submitted online. As she had properly filled up her application form, for the post of Assistant Professor (Education), nothing prevented the petitioner from filling up the application form, for the post of Assistant Professor B.Ed.(Technical Course) Hindi, properly. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot now be heard to contend that, notwithstanding her failure to state in the online application form that she possessed the requisite preferential qualification, she should, nonetheless, have been considered for selection to the post of Assistant Professor B.Ed.(Technical Course) Hindi as she had submitted her experience certificate to the Interview Board when she was interviewed. 10. Since the conditions stipulated in the advertisement prohibit the Public Service Commission to even entertain requests for correction of the entries made in the online application form, it could not have considered the petitioner's experience as an Assistant Professor in a government degree college for a period of 10 months, since no such information was furnished in the on-line application form submitted by her. We are satisfied, therefore, that the Public Service Commission has not erred in not awarding the petitioner bonus marks of 10% towards preferential qualification. 11. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. We are satisfied, therefore, that the Public Service Commission has not erred in not awarding the petitioner bonus marks of 10% towards preferential qualification. 11. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.