Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 184 (JK)

Sakshi Gupta v. State Of J&K

2020-03-19

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission in terms of its notification No.12-PSC (DR-P) of 2018 dated 15.10.2018, invited applications for 1000 posts of medical officer under different categories. 570 posts of Medical Officer were notified under Open Merit Category. The applicants were required to submit online application forms. The last date for filling online application forms complete in all respects along with requisite fee, to be deposited through online mode only, was 15.11.2018. 2. The petitioner claims that she being eligible to apply for the post submitted her online application form on 08.11.2018 against a proper acknowledgement generated on the same day i.e. 08.11.2018 itself. The petitioner asserts that along with filling up online application form, the petitioner also deposited online fee of ? 400/- by crediting the same to the account of respondent No.2. One time password was also generated, but somehow the payment could not be credited to the account of respondent No.2. The petitioner submits that she visited the office of respondent No.2 in person but could not get adequate response. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Commission informed the candidates that the written test for the posts of Medical Officer would be held on 02.12.2018 (Sunday) and that admit cards to the eligible candidates shall be available online on the official website of the respondent-Commission w.e.f. 23.11.2018. The petitioner claims that she could not generate her admit card and, therefore, approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on their mobile numbers but could not get any response. 3. Faced with the difficulty aforesaid, the petitioner filed the instant petition and this Court vide interim order dated 30.11.2018 permitted the petitioner to sit in the written examination for the post in question with a further direction to respondent No.2 to issue admit card to the petitioner provisionally so as to enable her to appear in the said examination. The petitioner claims to have participated in the written examination and made the grade. 4. The respondent-Commission has contested the writ petition, inter alia, contending that despite there being clear instructions contained in Clause 5(m) to (r) of the advertisement notification, the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite fee within the stipulated time. The petitioner claims to have participated in the written examination and made the grade. 4. The respondent-Commission has contested the writ petition, inter alia, contending that despite there being clear instructions contained in Clause 5(m) to (r) of the advertisement notification, the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite fee within the stipulated time. It is submitted that since the documents relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Annexure-E appended to the writ petition shows status of payment of fee as 'under processing', as such, the petitioner was supposed to contact the respondentCommission. She, however, chose not to do so. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner was rightly held ineligible to participate in the selection process and accordingly, no admit card was issued to her. It is, however, submitted that in compliance to the directions of this Court, the petitioner was issued admit card and allowed to sit in the examination provisionally and subject to the outcome of this writ petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that by and large, the facts are not in dispute in the instant case. The petitioner has, somehow, failed to deposit the requisite fee online. It is clear that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner not to pay the requisite fee before the cut off date. The petitioner made a genuine attempt to pay the fee online and credited the same to the account of the Commission but, as it appears, due to some technical fault or poor internet connectivity, the petitioner could not succeed in her attempt. It is true and rightly contended by the respondent-Commission that in such event the petitioner was supposed to approach the respondents and make the deposit there. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to do so and in that event respondent No.2 did not accept her application form and did not generate her admit card. 6. Clause 5(m) to (r) of the advertisement notification, relied upon by learned counsel for the Commission, clearly provide that candidate is supposed to pay requisite fee through online mode only in 'submitted application menu' in its account and in case payment status shows either 'not submitted' or 'under processing' or status has not been reflected on the submitted application form, the candidate is advised to contact the J&K Public Service Commission Office Solina/Reshamghar Colony, Jammu immediately for clarification. 7. 7. This admittedly, has not been done by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the question arises as to whether for this negligence on part of the petitioner, she should be punished by rejecting her candidature altogether or same can be condoned in the special facts and circumstances of the case. From a perusal of Clause 5(m) to (r) of the advertisement notification, I could not find any consequence having been provided by the Commission for failure of the candidate to deposit the requisite fee before the cut off date. That apart, it is not a case where the petitioner had not intended to deposit the fee but is a case where her attempt to do so had failed due to technical reasons. The only mistake which can be attributed to the petitioner is that she should have immediately apprised the Commission when she found the payment status showing 'under processing', but that mistake or even if, we call it a negligent act on part of the petitioner could not be taken as a ground to reject her candidature ab initio. 8. The fact that the petitioner has participated in the written examination, pursuant to the interim direction of this Court, and has reportedly made the grade is another factor, which cannot be ignored by this Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, despite holding that the petitioner was negligent in depositing the online fee of ? 400/- within the stipulated time, I am inclined to allow this writ petition on equitable considerations. Ordered accordingly. 10. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner and in case, she has made the grade, she shall be recommended to the Government for her appointment as Medical Officer against any available post within a period of four weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the respondents. This shall, however, be subject to petitioner depositing ? 1,000/- i.e. ? 400/- as fee and ? 600/- as penalty for delay, in the account of respondent No.2. Needless to say that on receipt of the recommendations from the Public Service Commission, the consequential order of appointment shall be issued in favour of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner shall, however, be prospective.