JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to quash the appointment order of respondent No.3 being arbitrary, illegal, wrong and false. (ii) That respondent may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner against the post and declare the result of the petitioner by evaluating him in the select list of successful candidates belonging to OBC category from the merit list prepared in pursuance of advertisements and offer appointment the post of Junior Officer under OBC category.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- A process was initiated by the respondent- Commission, inter alia, to fill up four posts of Junior Officer (Personnel & Administration), in terms of advertisement dated 16.05.2016, appended with the petition as Annexure A- 12. The posts of Junior Officer (Personnel & Administration) at S.O. Level, were in the pay scale of Rs.10900-34800+Grade Pay Rs.4350 (PB-3) with basic pay of Rs.15250/- PM (Minimum of the Pay Band plus Grade Pay). The eligibility criteria, as can be deciphered from the documents appended with the petition was as under:- 10. Qualifications required Graduate with one year Full Time (a) Essential: Diploma in HR/ Personnel Management with 55% marks from a recognized University. Employees of HPPCL who have acquired The above referred Qualification with 55% marks through full time or part time or through correspondence/ distance mode from a recognized institute/ University shall also be Eligible/considered. Relaxation in age and % age of marks as per rules of HPPCL. Knowledge of Compute basics i.e. MS word, Excel, E-mail etc. 3. Petitioner applied for the said post for being considered for appointment to the respondent-Commission. Vide Annexure A-3, dated 31.03.2018, Under Secretary Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., addressed the following communication to the petitioner under the subject “Recruitment to the Post of Junior Officer (P & A)), post Code 510:- “With reference to your online application submitted for the post of Junior Officer (P&A) post code 510. At the time of evaluation you have submitted the degree of MBA instead of Diploma in HR/Personnel Management. At the time of evaluation you have submitted the degree of MBA instead of Diploma in HR/Personnel Management. You are therefore advised to submit the degree of MBA in (PM/HR) on or before 10-04-2018, failing which it will be presumed that you do not fulfill the essential qualification and your candidature for this post shall stand rejected.” 4. According to the petitioner, after receipt of this communication, copy of diploma was forwarded by him to the respondent-Commission through e-mail. Copies of the e-mail so sent to the respondent-Commission are appended with the petition as Annexures P-7 and P-8, which are dated 07.08.2018 and 10.04.2018. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-10, when the result of the process in issue was declared by the respondent-Commission, the name of the petitioner did not figure amongst the selected candidates and his enquiry revealed that his candidature stood rejected by the Commission on the ground that the information which was sought from him vide communication dated 31.03.2018 was not made available to the Commission by him within the requisite time. It is under these circumstances, petitioner approached this Court praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove, inter alia, on the ground that as he had already supplied requisite information to the Commission on 07.04.2018 and 10.04.2018, the act of respondent- Commission of rejecting his candidature is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after 31.03.2018, no communication whatsoever was ever received from the Commission by the petitioner either to the effect that the information sent by him through e-mail was not admissible and he should supply information through hard copy etc. or that the information as sought vide letter dated 31.03.2018 was not received at all. The Court has been apprised by him that out of the selected candidates, the candidate who was offered appointment under the O.B.C. Category has not joined the duties and the post is still lying vacant. The petitioner also belongs to the O.B.C. Category. 6. or that the information as sought vide letter dated 31.03.2018 was not received at all. The Court has been apprised by him that out of the selected candidates, the candidate who was offered appointment under the O.B.C. Category has not joined the duties and the post is still lying vacant. The petitioner also belongs to the O.B.C. Category. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the petition on the ground that the information as was sought from the petitioner vide communication dated 31.03.2018 was never supplied by him by way of hard copy which was the requirement and the submission of the documents through email, cannot be construed to be a valid submission of the same because the petitioner was never instructed to supply the same through e-mail and there is a decision of the Commission, dated 07.03.2018, to the effect that no document sent to the Commission by a candidate through e-mail shall be entertained. He submitted that despite reasonable opportunities having been granted by the Commission to the petitioner, as he failed to supply the requisite information as was sought vide communication dated 31.03.2018, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the respondent-Commission. As far as the factum of one post of O.B. C. Category still lying vacant out of the four advertised posts is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the Commission. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also through the pleadings as well as record which has been produced today in the Court by Mr. Angrez Kapoor, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 8. It is not in dispute that the bone of contention between the parties is the submission of the certificates by the petitioner through e-mail in response to communication dated 31.03.2018, which as per the petitioner was a valid compliance of communication dated 31.03.2018, but which as per respondent-Commission is not a valid compliance thereof. The documents in issue having been received through e-mail by the respondent-Commission on 07.04.2018 and 10.04.2018, is also not in dispute. The information which was sought by the petitioner to this effect under Right to Information Act, 2005 (relevant copies of which stand appended with the petition as Annexure P-11), demonstrates that the requisite documents were received through e-mail by the Commission on 07.10.2018 and10.04.2018. 9. The information which was sought by the petitioner to this effect under Right to Information Act, 2005 (relevant copies of which stand appended with the petition as Annexure P-11), demonstrates that the requisite documents were received through e-mail by the Commission on 07.10.2018 and10.04.2018. 9. Besides, it is not in dispute that at the relevant time, there was an e-mail portal of the Commission and the same was catering to candidates who were applying for various posts which were advertised by the said Commission. It is also not in dispute that the so called decision taken by the Commission, dated 07.03.2018, that henceforth no information provided to the Commission by a candidate through e-mail shall be entertained, was never put in public domain by it. In other words, it was a departmental decision taken by the Commission, which never saw the light of the day. In these circumstances, when it is not in dispute that requisite information as was sought by the Commission, vide communication dated 31.03.2018, stood supplied by the petitioner to the respondent-Commission on 07.04.2018 and10.04.2018, the act of the respondent-Commission of not acting upon it is indeed arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even if, benefit of doubt is to be given to the Commission that it did not act upon the information so supplied on account of the decision so taken by it on 07.03.2018, then also the minimum that was expected from the Commission was to have had given an opportunity to the petitioner by quoting its decision dated 07.03.2018, to provide fresh information by way of hard copy, which admittedly has not been done by the Commission. 10. Therefore, in these circumstances, rejection of candidature of the petitioner by respondent-Commission cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent-Commission is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Junior Officer (Personnel & Administration) against lying vacant post belong to O.B.C. Category. For the assistance of the Commission, the petitioner shall supply a hardcopy of the details of his educational qualifications within 15 days from today. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent-Commission in accordance with law and in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and appropriate decision upon the same shall be taken by it on or before 30.04.2021. Thereafter, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent-Commission in accordance with law and in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and appropriate decision upon the same shall be taken by it on or before 30.04.2021. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.