Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 590 (UTT)

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission v. Yamuna

2024-09-04

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.) This order shall dispose of above mentioned 03 cases, as common questions of facts and law are involved in them. For the sake of convenience, facts of Special Appeal No. 104/2017 are being taken into consideration. 2. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has come up in appeal against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 624/2013 and other connected cases dated 21.09.2016, whereby the Writ Petitions filed by the private respondents herein have been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.05.2009 published by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for various subjects in different Government Intermediate Colleges, the private respondents herein made their applications. The last date for submission of application form was 30.06.2009. All the private respondents herein had applied for the post of Lecturer (Hindi). One of the eligibility requirements, for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), was that a candidate must be post-graduate in Hindi and must also have Sanskrit subject, as one of the main subjects in graduation, along with Hindi. Since the private respondents herein had not taken Sanskrit as a subject in graduation, they once again appeared for examination in a single subject of Sanskrit for graduation in the year 2009, and the result of this examination was declared by the University on 05.07.2009, and in some cases on 04.07.2009. 4. The result of the selection process initiated by the Commission was declared on 29.03.2011, and after doing the scrutiny of the documents, the names of the private respondents herein were formally recommended by the Commission to the State Government and, thereafter, the State Government formally issued appointment letters to the private respondents on 01.09.2011. The private respondent in SPA No. 104/2017 joined her services at Government Intermediate College, Hatal, Tehsil Tuini, Chakrata, Dehradun. 5. Since the results of the private respondents were declared on 05.07.2009, the State Government, after a gap of five years, found that the private respondents were not eligible for appointment on the last date fixed for giving application forms, i.e. 30.06.2009, and, in this backdrop, a show-cause notice was issued by the Commission to them on 16.11.2011. 5. Since the results of the private respondents were declared on 05.07.2009, the State Government, after a gap of five years, found that the private respondents were not eligible for appointment on the last date fixed for giving application forms, i.e. 30.06.2009, and, in this backdrop, a show-cause notice was issued by the Commission to them on 16.11.2011. The private respondent in SPA No. 104/2017 gave her reply to the said show-cause notice, and took the stand that she had qualified the Sanskrit examination prior to 30.06.2009, and only the result was declared on 06.07.2009. She further contended that she had not made any misrepresentation before the authority. Vide impugned order dated 16.05.2013, her appointment was cancelled, and in this backdrop the Writ Petition was filed. 6. The learned Single Judge referred to the counter affidavit filed by the University in paragraph no. 16 of the impugned judgment, and observed that, though the result was declared on 05.07.2009, the private respondents had appeared for examination in April, 2009. Since, they had participated in the examination prior to the cut-off date for giving the application form, i.e. 30.06.2009, they could not be considered ineligible only on the ground that the result was technically declared on 05.07.2009, as declaration of result is not in the hands of a candidate. It is further observed in the impugned judgment that, initially, a show-cause notice was given by the Commission on 16.11.2011, to which a reply was given, but no action was taken by the Commission. However, subsequent to the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1235 of 2010, Basanti Rautela v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another, where the candidates, like the present private respondents, were applicants for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and had approached this Court stating that they did not have Sanskrit subject as one of the main subjects in graduation, and their result was declared after the last cut-off date. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding that they did not have requisite qualification on or before 30.06.2009. However, the learned Single Judge observed that this judgment could not be applied in the case of the private respondents herein, as they had already joined the services, and they had been working for the last five years, and in this backdrop the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions herein. 7. However, the learned Single Judge observed that this judgment could not be applied in the case of the private respondents herein, as they had already joined the services, and they had been working for the last five years, and in this backdrop the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions herein. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3272 had an occasion to examine the similar issue, where the candidate had appeared in the examination before the cut-off date, but the official result was declared after the cut-off date, i.e. 12.10.2015. However, the provisional/ confidential result were issued in favour of the candidates, but their candidature was rejected on the ground that provisional/ confidential result cannot be made the basis to treat them eligible on the cut-off date, i.e. 12.10.2015. Challenging the said order of rejection, the respondents therein filed Writ Petitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge, and thereafter affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in intra court appeals. Against the said order, the Commission went in SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Appeals filed by the Commission were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by observing that the candidates could not be treated as not qualified on the cut-off date, i.e. 12.10.2015, as the provisional/ confidential result had been declared by the Universities in favour of the candidates. 8. In the present case, the private respondents had appeared in the examination of Sanskrit before the cut-off date, i.e. before 30.06.2009, and their result was declared one week after the cut-off date i.e. on 05.07.2009. For all intents and purposes, the result would relate back to the date, when they had given the examination, and hence they were duly qualified. 9. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka and others (supra), is that even if provisional/ confidential result is declared by the University, the authenticity of that result can be verified by the Commission, and the candidates cannot be declared ineligible only on the ground that the final result had not been declared, and only the provisional/ confidential result was given to the candidates. 10. In view of the above-said discussion, we find no merit in the present Special Appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed. 11. 10. In view of the above-said discussion, we find no merit in the present Special Appeals. They are, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.