Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 395 (JHR)

Kamal Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2020-02-27

RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT : At the outset it is recorded herein that in pursuance to the order dated 16.01.2020, the records pertaining to the Diploma Level Joint Competitive Examination, 2016 (DSCCE- 2016), have been produced by one Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, presently working as Under Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, let the same be taken on record. 2. Personal appearance of Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Under Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is dispensed with. 3. All these three writ petitions since having similar cause of action, therefore, have been directed to be heard together and accordingly are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 4. These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order as contained in Memo No. 136 dated 14.12.2018 to the extent that the candidature of writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector was denied by the respondent authority on the ground that the writ petitioners had failed to acquire the training from the recognized establishment being registered under the Factories Act as also for seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in view of the fact that the petitioners have been declared successful in examination conducted pursuant to the advertisement No. 18/2016 by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission as also for quashing of the part of the notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 [as contained under Annexure-14] in so far as it prescribes that the experience certificate so issued should be from an enterprise which is registered under the Factories Act since the said provision contained in the notification is dehors the Rule contained in Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act as also the rule prescribed for appointment vide notification being S.O. No. 443(E) dated 12.06.1989 issued by the Central Government. 5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading in the writ petitions read hereunder as :- That the petitioners, claiming themselves to be eligible for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Mines Inspector) in pursuance of advertisement No. 18/2016 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, made their applications. 5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading in the writ petitions read hereunder as :- That the petitioners, claiming themselves to be eligible for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Mines Inspector) in pursuance of advertisement No. 18/2016 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, made their applications. It is the case of the petitioners that they were allowed to participate in the selection process in which they were found to be successful but at the time of scrutiny of their documents, their candidature was rejected on the ground that they were lacking eligibility pertaining to experience as provided under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement. The writ petitioners have approached to this Court making prayer for consideration of their candidature by cancelling the decision of the respondent authority with a further direction to quash the eligibility criteria pertaining to experience as under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement as also the Rule enacted by the respondent State of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 as contained under Annexure-14 in W.P.(S) No.4861 of 2019 which according to the writ petitioners, is in the teeth of provision as contained under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act as also the Notification dated 12.06.1989. 6. It requires to be referred herein, before considering the legality and propriety of the decision in rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioners to first deal with the prayer made to the effect for quashing of the experience condition as provided under Clause 4(b) of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2010 (in short Rules of 2010). 7. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties at Bar that the vires of Clause 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7648 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2015 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.Satyapal Reddy and Others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 391 . Govt. of A.P. and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 391 . This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the vires of Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 has already been held to be intra-vires and therefore, the prayer pertaining to the vires of Clause 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 is required to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed, in consequence thereof, the prayer pertaining to quashing of the Notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 is also dismissed. 8. So far as the rejection of candidature of the writ petitioners are concerned, reference of the advertisement is required to be made more particularly, the condition of experience as has been stipulated under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement which is based upon the provision of Clause 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 which provides that a candidate seeking consideration of his candidature for being appointed to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, he is required to have three years Diploma either in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering as also three years of practical experience in a factory registered under the Factories Act. It also requires to refer herein that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 18/2016 online applications were invited. The writ petitioners had submitted their applications claiming themselves to be having three years practical experience as per the condition stipulated under Clause 5.1 of the advertisement and as such their candidature were accepted and they were allowed to participate in the process of selection in which they were declared to be successful and they also came under the consideration zone for appointment but pursuant to the condition stipulated under the advertisement regarding scrutiny of the documents at the time of its verification i.e., prior to the issuance of offer of appointment, it was found that the declaration furnished by the writ petitioners about having three years practical experience in the factories having been registered under the Factories Act, was incorrect and, therefore, their candidature was rejected. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, in course of argument, submitted that when the writ petitioners were not having the requisite experience as per the condition stipulated under clause 5.1 of the advertisement, their candidature ought to have been rejected at the threshold but instead of doing so, the writ petitioners were allowed to participate in the process of selection and when they have been found to be successful, rejection of their candidature cannot be said to be a justified decision of the authority. 10. This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument, had directed the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission vide order dated 16th January, 2020 to bring on record the original records of selection process containing also the applications of the writ petitioners and in pursuance thereof the records have been produced. 11. We have perused the records wherefrom it appears that the writ petitioners have given a declaration about having three years experience after passing the Diploma examination. Since the candidate was required to submit online application, as such, there was no requirement to furnish the documents enabling the examination body to scrutinize the documents for consideration of candidature at the initial stage. It is not in doubt that if any online application is being invited by any board or agency conducting the examination, the details is required to be furnished by one or the other candidates and if a candidate would be found to be successful, he will have to produce himself along with the documents for its verification and if it comes to the notice of the authority at the time of scrutiny of the documents that any wrong declaration has been furnished, it is always available to the examination body to reject the candidature of such candidate. Admittedly, the writ petitioners, at the time of making online applications, have furnished the declaration about having three years practical experience and the examining body, treating it to be in pursuance of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, accepted the candidature of the writ petitioners and were allowed to participate in the process of selection and when at the time of scrutiny of the documents, in order to assess as to whether the details furnished at the time of online application is in pursuant to the condition stipulated in the advertisement, is found to be incorrect, the decision taken by the examining body by rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioners cannot be said to be unjustified as because when any condition has been stipulated in the advertisement based upon the statutory provision, it is incumbent upon one or the other candidate to furnish correct declaration for consideration of their candidature and if any declaration has been found contrary to the condition as contained in the advertisement, such candidate cannot be allowed to contest if his candidature has been rejected at the time of scrutiny of the document. It also requires to refer herein that the experience condition has been incorporated under Clause 5.1 of the advertisement based upon the provision of Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 and the same having been declared to be intra-vires by this Court in an order passed in W.P.(C) No. 7648 of 2013 and when the candidates are making their applications after looking to the stipulated conditions, it was incumbent upon such candidates who were seeking consideration of their candidature to come with clean hands i.e., without giving any wrong declaration. As would appear from the online applications available on record, this Court finds substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission about wrong declaration having been furnished by the writ petitioners. It is settled position of law that when any condition has been stipulated in the advertisement, it has unscrupulously to be followed without any deviation in any way. Otherwise, if any deviation would be allowed to one or the other candidate, it will amount to relaxation which is not permissible either by the recruiting agency or by this Court. It is settled position of law that when any condition has been stipulated in the advertisement, it has unscrupulously to be followed without any deviation in any way. Otherwise, if any deviation would be allowed to one or the other candidate, it will amount to relaxation which is not permissible either by the recruiting agency or by this Court. It further requires to refer that any appointment, if made contrary to the statutory provision, the same will dehors the Rule and accordingly, the appointment will be nullity in the eye of law. 12. This Court, in view of the aforesaid facts, is of the view that the writ petitioners have failed to make out any case for passing any positive direction, therefore, these writ petitions lack merit and, accordingly, are dismissed. 13. Consequently, interlocutory application being I.A. No. 240 of 2020 filed in W.P.(S) No. 4741 of 2019, also stands dismissed.