Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 February, 2021
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9975 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Ojha learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indresh Dubey learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amol Ranjan holding brief of Sri M.N Singh learned counsel for respondent no.2, i.e. U.P. Public Service Commission.
The main challenge is to the selection made by the U.P Public Service Commission on the post of the Principals, Government Intermediate Colleges (for boys and girls). Further prayers in the writ petition are to issue direction to the Commission to republish the select list from amongst the candidates who had submitted their experience-certificate in the prescribed format and who were otherwise eligible.
The dispute is pertaining to the selection notified by an advertisement, i.e. Combined State/ Upper Subordinate Services(PCS) General Recruitment/Physically Handicapped- Backlog/ Special Recruitment) Examination, 2018, the last date of submission of the online application form wherein was 6.8.2018. Amongst all other posts, the post of Principals of Government Colleges (for boys or girls) were notified for selection. Eligibility qualification of which is quoted as under:-
"Principal, Government Intermediate Colleges (For Boys or Girls)
(i) A Post-graduate degree from a University established by law in India or a degree recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(ii)L.T Diploma of the Department of Education, Uttar Pradesh or B.T or B.Ed. or an equivalent Degree of a University.
At least three years teaching experience in High School or Intermediate Classes or Classes higher than above from a College or University established by law in India or any such Institution recognised by the Government."
Clause-10 of the advertisement provides educational qualification for the notified posts in the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services and special qualifications prescribed in the column against the said posts. The conditions of eligibility as is clear from Clause-8 of the advertisement was that the candidates must possess all the requisite qualifications/eligibility conditions till the last date for submitting the application form. One of the eligibility qualification for appointment to the post of Principals of Government Intermediate College was three years experience of teaching.
Three stages of selection were preliminary examination, main examination and interview. After the candidates were short listed on the declaration of result of preliminary examination, as per the notification issued by the Commission they were required to submit the experience-certificate of requisite qualification of teaching experience in the prescribed format which is appended as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition. The proforma-2 is transcribed as under:-
प्रारूप-2 उ०प्र० शैक्षिक (सामान्य शिक्षा संवर्ग) सेवा समूह-"ख" उच्चतर के अन्तर्गत प्रधानाचार्य पद हेतु अनुभव प्रमाण पत्र प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि श्री/श्रीमती/कु० ........
पिता/पति का नाम ........
पता ..................
संस्था का नाम ....................
हाईस्कूल या इण्टर मीडिएट कक्षाओं या उपरोक्त से उच्चतर कक्षाओं में भारत में विधि द्वारा स्थापित किसी विश्वविद्यालय अथवा महाविद्यालय अथवा सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त संस्था में कम से कम तीन वर्ष अध्यापन हेतु पद (पद का नाम) ............. पर दिनांक .......... से दिनांक ........बेतनबैण्ड ............ग्रेड पे............ कुल परिलब्धियां............ कार्यरत थे/है।
ह0/-
नाम-
प्रधानाचार्य// प्रबंधक /रिजिस्ट्रार मुहर प्रतिहस्ताक्षरित संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक मंडल का नाम मुहर The result of the main examination was declared whereupon 248 candidates were declared successful for the post of Principal. They were invited for interview. A notification dated 27.6.2020 appended at page--'84' of the paper book was issued by the Commission calling upon the candidates who had uploaded the experience-certificate alongwith their online application form but not countersigned by the Joint Director of Education, to furnish duly countersigned experience-certificate on the date of interview. At that stage, some of the selected candidates waiting for interview had approached this Court in Writ petition no.5383 of 2020. The challenge there was that after declaration of the main result, liberty could not have been given to the candidates who did not furnish experience-certificate duly countersigned by the Joint Director of Education to furnish fresh experience-certificate. In the said matter, the Court has made the observation that liberty was granted by the Commission with a view to encourage the candidates who had committed slight error in uploading the form. It was also observed that the notification dated 27.6.2020 was confined only to those candidates who had uploaded the form of experience but in the said certificate of experience, the counter-signature of the Joint Director of Education could not be obtained.
In view of the said finding and the clarification recorded by this Court, the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 28.8.2020.
It further appears from the record that another notification dated 6.7.2020 was issued by the Commission notifying the date and time-slot of the interview.
The said notification further provided that the candidates had to furnish necessary experience-certificates in view of the notification dated 27.6.2020 at the time of interview.
Clause 'Ga' of the notification dated 6.7.2020 reads as under:-
(ग) प्रधानाचार्य पद हेतु सफल घोषित अभ्यर्थी पूर्व में जारी विज्ञप्ति दिनांक 27.06.2020 के अनुसार निर्धारित संयुक्त शिक्षा निदेशक (जे.डी.) द्वारा प्रतिहस्ताक्षरित अनुभव प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करें।
उपर्युक्त प्रमाण-पत्रों के अभाव में अभ्यर्थियों का साक्षात्कार किया जाना सम्भव नहीं होगा।
It is, thus, clear that it was clarified by the Commission in the abovementioned two notifications dated 27.7.2020 and 6.7.2020 that all those candidates who were invited for interview for the posts of Principals were required to furnish experience-certificate duly countersigned by the Joint Director of Education (JD) on the date of interview and in the event of non furnishing of the said certificate, they would not be permitted to participate in the interview.
It further appears from the record that when the result of the interview was declared, some candidates had been shown to have been provisionally selected for the post of Principals of the Government College. The said result appears to have been declared on 11.9.2020 whereafter the present petition had been filed on 20.9.2020.
The categorical stand of the petitioners herein is that they had cleared two stages of the written examination and also faced the interview. However, on account of the provisional selection of 33 candidates who did not furnish their experience-certificates on date of interview, their names have been excluded from the final select list.
The contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners is that in any case, as per the advertisement notification issued by the Commission, the cut-off date for possession of the essential qualification was the last date of submission of the online application form, i.e 6.8.2018. The teaching experience of three years is one of the essential qualifications for selection to the post of Principals, Government Intermediate Colleges. The said condition could not have been relaxed by the Commission as the rules of selection could not have been changed during the course of the selection process. The said submission is not acceptable for the admitted fact that only those candidates who had uploaded teaching experience-certificate alongwith the online application form were required to furnish the same in the prescribed format -2, as extracted above on the date of the interview and that this Court did not accept this submission in the earlier round of litigation. Another reason being that the requirement of submission of the experience-certificate in the prescribed proforma-2 was notified to the candidates with the declaration of the result of the preliminary examination and no such proforma was provided in the advertisement notification.
It may further be noted that the Commission had issued two notifications dated 27.6.2020 and 6.7.2020 unambiguously notifying all selected candidates that they were required to furnish the experience-certificate countersigned by the Joint Director of Education in the prescribed form-2 on the date of interview. There is no dispute about the said notification, however, the Commission had included even those candidates in the final select list declared after the interview, who did not furnish the experience certificate in the prescribed form-2 on the date of interview. The dispute in the present case, thus, revolves around this issue only.
In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, the averments in para '12' and '13' are relevant to be noted hereunder:-
"12.That, it is in view of such fact that in the present case the candidates who had not submitted their Experience-Certificate in the prescribed format inasmuch as the candidates whose Experience-Certificates were not countersigned by the Joint Director but such candidates who were otherwise qualified and eligible for participation in the last stage of selection process have been accorded an opportunity to submit such certificate at the time of interview. Such decision of the U.P Public Service Commission taken in the interest of the candidates cannot be faulted with in any manner whatsoever inasmuch as no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the U.P Public Service Commission while taken such decision and applying the same universally without any discrimination and as such the present writ petition is wholly unfounded and misconceived.
13.That in so far as the averments contained in paragraph no.14 of the writ petition is concerned it may be submitted before his Hon'ble Court that the candidates who were permitted to participate in the interview vide notification dated 27.6.2020 and were accorded time to furnish requisite certificates at the time of interview, out of such candidates who participated in the interview and have been finally selected on merit, have been accorded additional time in terms of the decisions of the Commission dated 7.6.2011 and 9.8.2019 and it is on account of such fact that such candidates, who have been accorded additional time, have been shown to be selected provisionally."
A reading of para '13' of the short counter affidavit indicates that the Commission had accorded additional time to furnish requisite documents/certificates at a later date to those candidates who had participated in the interview without furnishing the requisite teaching experience-certificate on the date of interview. Additional time to furnish the necessary documents is stated to have been given by the Commission on the basis of some decisions taken by it in the meetings dated 7.6.2011 and 9.8.2019 which are appended as Annexure-SCA-'4' and SCA-'5'.
A perusal of the said decisions indicates that at the relevant point of time in the year 2011 and 2019, the Commission had decided to grant 30 days time twice (sixty days in total) to the selected candidates for furnishing the documents on an undertaking given by them on the date of interview.
In the considered opinion of the Court, the decisions taken in the years 2011 and 2019 could not have been a piece of guidance for the selection which is being made in the year 2020-2021, moreso, when the Commission had unambiguously made it clear that those candidates who did not furnish the experience-certificate countersigned by the Joint Director of Education would not be eligible to participate in the interview. There may be certain candidates, who might not have appeared in the interview as they did not possess the requisite certificate countersigned by the Joint Director of Education, in view of the notifications dated 27.6.2020 and 6.7.2020. In case the Commission is allowed to provisionally select candidates who did not comply with the requirements of the aforesaid notifications by granting them additional time, those candidates who abided by the said notifications would stand discriminated. Such an exercise, if permitted, would also give liberty to the officials to adopt pick and choose policy, to select few and reject others at their whims and fancies. The Court cannot expect that everyone who had been discriminated would have means and advise to approach this Court to ventilate his/her grievances. The discrepancy in the method adopted by the Commission goes to the very root of the selection.
It may also to be noted that on the date of interview, a candidate is required to appear in the office of the Commission along with the original documents and self attested downloaded copies of the online application form and educational testimonials and other necessary documents prior to the interview. The permission to participate in the interview is granted by the Commission only after submission of the necessary documents by the candidates on the date of interview, as mentioned in the notification dated 6.7.2020.
It is admitted that original documents are compared with the self-attested downloaded copies provided by the candidates in the office of the Commission but originals are not deposited by the Commission on the date of interview or before the preparation of its final recommendation. The verification of the testimonials or documents submitted by the candidates is made only after the appointment letters are issued at the level of the competent authority on the recommendation of the Commission.
Even otherwise, every selection process has to be conducted by the Commission in a transparent manner and strictly as per the requirements of the advertisement which must be in conformity with the recruitment Rules. Subsequent change of procedure or rules of game is not permitted to the Commission during the course of the selection process.
Having perused the stand of the petitioners in the writ petition and that of the Commission in the short counter affidavit that some candidates who did not furnish teaching experience-certificate of three years (essential qualification) on the date of interview were permitted to be provisionally selected, subject to subsequent submission of the said certificate, this Court finds that the select list declared by the Commission after interview which is appended as Annexure-'12' to the writ petition is faulty.
The matter was heard pre-lunch and time was granted to the counsel for the Commission to intimate the stage of the selection post-lunch. When matter was taken up post-lunch learned counsel for the Commission informed that the final recommendations are in the process and there are certain other minor defects in the documents furnished by the candidates which are sought to be corrected by them at this stage only before the recommendations are finalised by the Commission.
The controversy in the present case, however, is confined to the candidates who have been provisionally selected despite not furnishing the requisite three years teaching experience-certificate countersigned by the Joint Director of Education on the date of interview. This Court does not find it proper to go beyond this issue while examining the validity of the select list declared after interview.
In view of the above discussion, the Commission is directed to redraw the select list by inclusion of only those candidates who possessed requisite essential qualifications on the last date of submission of the application form ie 6.8.2018 notified in the advertisement-in-question including those who had furnished the teaching experience-certificate in the prescribed proforma-2, extracted above, on the date of interview, in compliance of the notifications dated 27.6.2020 and 6.7.2020 issued by the Commission. The recommendations be, accordingly, prepared by the Commission within one month.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Harshita