Allahabad High Court
Prashant Kumar Dubey And Another vs U.P.Subordinate Services Commission ... on 8 March, 2021
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 18526 of 2018 Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Dubey And Another Respondent :- U.P.Subordinate Services Commission Lko.Throu,Secy.And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Dayal,Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 11.06.2018 passed by respondent no.2, which is appended with the petition as Annexure - 1.
The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari (General Selection) bearing Advertisement No.03-exam/2016 issued in the year 2016.
Brief facts of the case is that an advertisement on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari was issued vide Advertisement No.03-exam/2016 in the year 2016. The petitioner applied for the said post. Thereafter, written and physical examinations were held in which the petitioners appeared and declared qualified. Thereafter, respondent no.2/Chairman, UPSSSC, Lucknow issued letters dated 07.03.2018 & 18.03.2018 inviting the petitioners to appear for interview on 04.05.2018 and 23.04.2018. The petitioners appeared in the interview and submitted all original academic certificates alongwith CCC certificate duly issued by National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), however, they were denied to appear in interview process because their CCC certificate was issued after the date of advertisement.
Learned counsel has submitted that denial of the petitioners from appearing in the interview process is illegal and unjust. He has submitted that the petitioners were not provided denial letter in writing and were only orally informed that their CCC certificate is issued after the date of advertisement, therefore, they are not eligible to appear in the interview.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners were having requisite qualification at the time of advertisement. In fact, they had qualified CCC in the year 2014 and 2015 and only the certificate in that regard has been issued in the year 2017. It is submitted that NIELIT through letter dated 15.05.2018 bearing Ref No.16(4)99/1-89-NIELIT/[1322] and letter no.NIELIT/GKP/336/CCC/PC-005 dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure - 6 to the writ petition) has clarified that result of the petitioners would be deemed to be the date of acquiring of CCC qualification i.e. 23.05.2015.
It is further submitted that the petitioners submitted representation before UPSSSC clarifying the situation but no heed was paid. Thereafter, they preferred Writ Petition No.15836 (SS) of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.05.2018 with direction to the competent authority to decide the representations of the petitioners. In pursuance of the said order, the representation(s) of the petitioners were considered and have been rejected, which is unjust and arbitrary.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners have qualified the CCC course in the year 2014 and 2015 and only the certificate in that regard has been issued in the year 2017. Moreover, the aforesaid letters dated 15.05.2018 and 14.05.2018 issued from NIELIT are also on record to corroborate that the candidates who qualified the examination of Course of Computer Concepts (CCC) conducted by NIELIT acquires the qualification of CCC from the date of result publication irrespective of the date of issuance of certificate.
Learned counsel has further submitted that similarly situated persons who were issued CCC certificate after the notification/advertisement were permitted to appear in the interview but the petitioners are denied, which is arbitrary and unjust. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 11.06.2018 (supra) is arbitrary and illegal, and the same deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that selection process initiated with issuance of the aforesaid advertisement has achieved its finality with publication of final result on 18.01.2018 and all the notified vacancies under the said advertisement have been filled up. It is submitted that Clause 14(15) of the aforesaid advertisement stipulates that a candidate appearing in the said examination must mandatorily possess the educational qualification as prescribed in Clause 8(3) of the said advertisement prior to last date of submission of online applications i.e. 10.02.2016.
Learned counsel has further submitted that as per Clause 15(9) of the aforesaid advertisement, the candidates will be allowed to appear in the written examination on the basis of information provided by them. However, at subsequent stage, if they be found ineligible or unqualified then their candidature shall be rejected. The said clause further stipulates that even if they would have been recommended for selection, the same shall be recalled if they be found ineligible.
Learned counsel has also submitted that Clause 15(12) of the aforesaid advertisement stipulates that those candidates who do not possess the mandatory educational qualification, which includes CCC certificate, should refrain themselves from applying as they shall not be eligible for the same.
Learned counsel has submitted that CCC certificate of both the petitioners have been issued in the year 2017, which is subsequent to the last date of submission of application form i.e. 10.02.2016. After interview, the petitioners submitted letters issued by NIELIT stating therein that result of CCC examination was issued on 2014 and 2015. But the said letters were never apprised by the petitioners in the date of interview.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is clear that the dispute is hovering around whether the petitioner can be debarred from participating in an examination process due to fault of NIELIT, which issued CCC certificate of the petitioners after two years.
In the case in hand, the advertisement was issued in the year 2016 and last date of submission of application form was 10.02.2016. It is not the case of the petitioners that they appeared in the CCC examination in the year 2014 and 2015 and their result was declared in the year 2017 i.e. after the date of advertisement, instead the only case is that they had qualified CCC examination in the year 2014 & 2015 i.e. prior to the date of advertisement but their CCC certificates have been issued in the year 2017.
Perusal of the CCC certificate of the petitioners, which are collectively appended with rejoinder affidavit as Annexure RA - 3, reveal that petitioner no.1 qualified the CCC course in February, 2015 and petitioner no.2 in January, 2014 and only the certificates in that regard have been issued in the year 2017. Letters issued from NIELIT clarifying the said fact are also annexed with the CCC certificates. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that the petitioners were having requisite qualification before the date of advertisement. It is suffice to say that a candidate cannot be made to suffer due to fault of an institute (NIELIT), which issued the certificate after more than two years.
In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed.
A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing impugned order dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure - 1) passed by respondent no.2 i.e. Chairman, U.P. Subordinate Services Commission, Lucknow.
The concerned/competent authority is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners as per the observation made hereinabove.
Order Date :- 8.3.2021 nishant/-