Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 156 (HP)

Mahesh Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-03-19

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2021
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. CMPST No.8286 of 2021 By way of this application, a prayer has been made by the applicant/petitioner to place on record the copies of the diploma of applicant/ petitioner. Copy thereof stands supplied to learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this application is disposed of by taking the documents appended therewith on record as it is not in dispute that the documents in issue were submitted by the applicant/petitioner alongwith her Application Form for appointment to the post in issue. CWP No.2246 of 2019 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing order dated 23.02.2019 (annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.3 whereby the respondents have declared the final result regarding the post of JOA-IT 556. (ii) that a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent authorities not to give the appointment letter to any of the candidates till the final disposal of the pending matters regarding the matter under adjudication by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to rejection of his candidature to the post of Junior Office Assistant, which stood advertised by the respondent- Commission vide advertisement No.32-3/2016 (Annexure P-2), appended with the petition. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are, that vide advertisement No.32-3/2016, which was issued in the month of September 2016, various posts were advertised by the respondent-Commission to be filled up in various departments of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. This also included the posts of Junior Office Assistant (on contract basis) in the pay scale of 5910- 20200+1950 (GP). The number of posts advertised in the advertisement were 704, which the Court stands informed were subsequently increased to 1156, in various departments including the department of Excise and Taxation. Incidently, though the advertisement reflected that the post is to be filled up on contract basis, but as far as department of Excise and Taxation is concerned, against this particular department 85 posts were reflected which were to be filled up on regular basis. The eligibility criteria, inter alia, envisaged the following qualifications to be possessed for the prospective candidates:- 556. Junior Office Assistant i. 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University. ii. The eligibility criteria, inter alia, envisaged the following qualifications to be possessed for the prospective candidates:- 556. Junior Office Assistant i. 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University. ii. One year diploma in Compute Science/Computer Application/Information Technology from a recognized University/Institution. iii. Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. OR i 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University. ii. ‘O’ or ‘A’ level Diploma from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NELIT). iii. Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. OR i. 10+2 from a recognized Board of School education/University. ii. Diploma in Information Technology (IT) from a recognized ITI/Institution. iii. Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. Thereafter, vide notification dated 23.02.2019, appended with the present petition as Annexure P-3, the final result on the basis of written objective test etc. was declared by the Commission and this is where the grievance of the petitioner originated as feeling aggrieved by not finding his name in the said list, when enquiries were made by him, the petitioner was appraised that his candidature stood rejected on the ground that the qualification so possessed by him was not valid for the purpose of appointment to the post in issue. 4. Today, by way of a miscellaneous application i.e. CMPST No. 6286 of 2021, which has been allowed by the Court, the petitioner has placed on record the certificate which was obtained by him from Hi-tech Computer Education in the course of ‘Diploma in Computer Application”. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents appended with the pleadings. 6. As, I have already mentioned hereinabove, the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement rendering a candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Office Assistant, inter alia, were one year diploma in Computer Science, Computer Application, or Information Technology, from a recognized University/Institution. The diploma, which is possessed by the petitioner, is in Computer Application. 6. As, I have already mentioned hereinabove, the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement rendering a candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Office Assistant, inter alia, were one year diploma in Computer Science, Computer Application, or Information Technology, from a recognized University/Institution. The diploma, which is possessed by the petitioner, is in Computer Application. On a pointed query put forth by the Court to the learned counsel appearing for the Commission as to on what basis the qualification so possessed by the petitioner was not a valid qualification as per the Commission, he submitted on the basis of reply that the eligibility of petitioner was tested by the Commission on the basis of report of a Committee appended with the reply filed by respondent-Commission as Annexure R-3, dated 15.06.2019. 7. A perusal of the proceedings of the said Committee demonstrates that said Committee was constituted in compliance to the orders of this Court, passed on 21.05.2019, in CWP’s No.161 and 629 of 2019 and the Committee was to examine and give its recommendations on the following issues:- “(i)Equivalence of the academic/technical qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT). (ii) Recognition of the institutions imparting trainings and running courses in computer/IT related subjects. (iii) Higher qualifications vis-à-vis the minimum essential and other qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post.” 8. This Committee after due deliberation, held as under:- “Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated as above, the Committee unanimously concluded that no equivalent qualification can be considered/recommended in the absence of a specific clause to this effect in the R& P Rules. (ii)Recognition of various Institutions/Training Centres The Members Secretary informed that the HPSSC, Hamirpur had formed an internal Committee to ascertain the eligibility of candidates for posts of JOA(IT). This Committee went through the documents of all the candidates and segregated them in different groups based on their qualifications and recognition of their institutes. It was informed that a large number of candidates had obtained their qualifications from unrecognized institutes and thus their candidature was rejected by the Commission. The Committee then examined and discussed the report of the internal Committee in detail. The Committee further deliberated on the issue of recognition of institutes and it was unanimously felt that no impart quality training, an institute must have following attributes:- . The Committee then examined and discussed the report of the internal Committee in detail. The Committee further deliberated on the issue of recognition of institutes and it was unanimously felt that no impart quality training, an institute must have following attributes:- . Training Faculty . Well defined curriculum . Well defined system of instructions . Well defined system of assessment . External evaluation and certification .Good Infrastructure . Affiliation to any Government body or regulatory agency . Inspection by external agencies. The Committee was in consensus that any institute lacking above attributes will not be able to provide quality training and essential skills and the candidates possessing any qualification from such institutions cannot be considered for public service as per R&P Rules. It was also deliberated in the meeting that a number of such institutes have mushroomed all over the Stat and are neither imparting quality education nor essential skills in computer education. On the other hand, the Institutes affiliated/recognized by Regulators/ Government agencies like UGC/AICTE/ SCVT/ NCVT etc. have well established infrastructure, defined curriculum, evaluation system, trained faculty etc. Thus, it is clear that the recognized affiliated Institutes are only able to impart required skills and quality education to the students and have all the attributes mentioned in the proceeding para. Thus, keeping in view, the Committee agreed that only qualifications obtained from recognized institutes be considered for recruitment of JOA(IT) and the ZONE OF CONSIDERATION/ Selection cannot expanded after the start of the selection process.” 9. In the considered view of this Court, even if the contention of the Commission that it contested the eligibility of the petitioner on the basis of report of the Commission has to be accepted, then also the Commission was duty bound to have had passed some kind of order in the case of petitioner, holding the qualification possessed by petitioner to be an invalid qualification. This admittedly was not done. In the absence of the same and further in the absence of any competent authority having held that the Institution from which petitioner had obtained the diploma was unrecognized or the diploma of petitioner was unrecognized the candidature of petitioner could not have arbitrarily rejected as has been done by the Commission. 10. This admittedly was not done. In the absence of the same and further in the absence of any competent authority having held that the Institution from which petitioner had obtained the diploma was unrecognized or the diploma of petitioner was unrecognized the candidature of petitioner could not have arbitrarily rejected as has been done by the Commission. 10. In fact, no material has been placed on record by the Commission to substantiate that the diploma possessed by petitioner or the institution from which the diploma has been gained by petitioner is either bad or not recognized, especially as the Commission was in possession of the diploma of the petitioner. 11. In these circumstances, the act of the respondent- Commission of holding the petitioner to be ineligible for consideration to the post in issue is highly arbitrary. In a number of cases, this Court has observed that the respondent- Commission which has been entrusted with the responsibility of recruiting employees from various departments of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is acting in a slipshod manner. There appears to be no due application of mind at the time of scrutiny of applications for assessing the suitability of a candidate. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the country is full of unemployed youth and what more frustration can be caused to them, but by the fact that institutions like respondent-Commission are arbitrarily rejecting the candidature of eligible candidates. The Court is refraining from making any further observations in this regard, but a caveat is being issued to the Commission that the act of ascertaining eligibility of a candidate being a sacrosanct act should be undertaken by the Commission with due application of mind. 12. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that rejection of the candidature of petitioner by respondent-Commission is held to be bad and respondent-Commission is directed to reassess the candidature of petitioner for the post in issue on the basis of merit secured by him in the recruitment process. In case, the petitioner is eligible for appointment, then the same be offered to him against unfilled/vacant post without disturbing the appointed candidates. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.