Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 401 (UTT)

Minakshi Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-12

RAVI MALIMATH, RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. - The petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in nature of certiorarified mandamus to declare impugned rejection order dated 26.09.2020 (contained as Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) by which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected along with order dated 28.08.2020 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner is declared ineligible for non-producing of OBC Certificate and also to declare the condition no. 14 of the advertisement dated 06.05.2020 (contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) so far as annexing all the documents along with the online application as unreasonable and arbitrary; keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition and to quash the same and to mould the relief appropriately, so the grievances of the petitioner can be redressed, after calling the entire records from the respondents. II. Issue a writ, rule or direction in nature of mandamus by directing the respondent no. 2 to accept the candidature of the petitioner as well as her OBC Certificate and also to permit the petitioner in the selection process and interview for the post of Associate Professor (Obst and Gynae) by keeping OBC Certificate along with all consequential benefits had been the impugned orders were never inexistence. III. Issue an appropriate order or direction and appropriate relief to the petitioner against the respondent no. 3 and 4 for their actionable wrong which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition. IV. Issue any other writ, rule or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. V. Award cost of the petition." 2. The last cut-off date for submitting applications along with relevant documents for the post of Assistant Professor (Obst and Gynae) was 08.06.2020. The petitioner claims to belong to the OBC category. She could not file the said certificate within the cut-off date. She received the said certificate only on 21.07.2020 from the concerned authority. Thereafter, she submitted the same. It was rejected by the respondents. Hence, the instant petition was filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned rejection order and consequently to declare the petitioner to be eligible to participate in the interview. 3. She received the said certificate only on 21.07.2020 from the concerned authority. Thereafter, she submitted the same. It was rejected by the respondents. Hence, the instant petition was filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned rejection order and consequently to declare the petitioner to be eligible to participate in the interview. 3. Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the application requesting for the OBC certificate was made quite earlier, but unfortunately, the same was received only on 21.07.2020, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. Because of the delay or inaction of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay penalty for the same. 4. However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. The cut-off date for submitting the relevant documents, along with the application, was 08.06.2020. The document was received on 21.07.2020, i.e. much after the cut-off date. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria and others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 , made a difference between 'fact' and 'proof'. It held at paragraph 20 as follows: "20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course ? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held therein that the fact of having a certificate belonging to a particular caste must exist before the cut-off date and the proof of such an existence even though, if not filed before the cut-off date, could be accepted after the cut-off date. Therefore, the existence of the fact of having a certificate should exist before the cut-off date. The facts in the instant case are different. The OBC certificate was received by the petitioner only on 21.07.2020, whereas the cut-off date was 08.06.2020. Neither there was a certificate, nor a declaration that the petitioner belongs to OBC category. 7. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed by the respondents that calls for any interference. The OBC certificate having been obtained and produced after the cut-off date the petitioner is ineligible to participate in the interview. 8. Hence, we do not find any good ground to interfere in this petition. The petition is dismissed.