Smt. Mamta Devi vs State Of H.P. & Others on 5 October, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Smt. Mamta Devi vs State Of H.P. & Others on 5 October, 2023

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                           .
                                                      CWP No.6590 of 2022





                                                      Decided on: 05.10.2023

    Smt. Mamta Devi                                                    ....Petitioner.





                 Versus
    State of H.P. & others                                            .... Respondents.

    Coram




                                                 of
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the petitioner     :    Mr. Pranav Sharma, Advocate.

    For the Respondents
                         rt           :      Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
                                             Advocate General, with Mr. Sumit
                                             Sharma Deputy Advocate General

                                             and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer,
                                             for respondents No.1 to 3/State.
                                             Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate,
                                             for respondent No.4.



    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief: "(i) That the result declared by the respondent commission of selection to the post of JBT teachers against OBC category for Distt. Hamirpur HP at Annexure P7 and a fresh result may kindly be directed to be prepared after considering the candidature of the petitioner."

2. The case of the petitioner is that an Advertisement was issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 2

Hamirpur, i.e., Advertisement No.342 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018, in terms whereof, Online Recruitment Applications were invited .

from eligible candidates for filing up various posts advertised therein, which included 617 posts of Junior Basic Trained (hereinafter to be referred as 'JBT') Teachers for different districts including 39 posts for District Hamirpur. As the petitioner was of eligible to apply for the post of JBT Teacher because she fulfilled the eligibility criteria as contained in the Advertisement, she rt submitted her Online Recruitment Application Form on 07.01.2019 (Annexure P6). Necessary details of the qualifications possessed by the petitioner were specified therein. She successfully cleared the written test. Thereafter, the petitioner was invited for the 15 marks evaluation on prescribed parameters vide Annexure P7 and she participated in the screening process on 21.06.2022.

3. Thereafter, respondents issued a list of selected candidates as well as a list of those candidates whose candidature was rejected. In Annexure P9, which was the list of rejected candidates, her name was reflected with the remarks that she was not fulfilling essential qualification in terms of the Advertisement.

Feeling aggrieved by rejection of her candidature, she made a representation Annexure P10, but as no response was received thereto, hence the petition.

::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of the Advertisement, a candidate was eligible to be considered for .

appointment against the post of JBT, if he or she was possessing the minimum qualification of 10+2 followed with Junior Basic Teacher Diploma or other recognized qualifications and had also passed the Teacher Eligibility Test for ClassI to ClassIV to be of conducted by an Authority designated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner after passing her 10+2 rt examination in the year 1997 from the H.P. Board of School Education (Annexure P1), had obtained JBT Teacher Certificate from the H.P. Board of School Education on 09.10.2015 (Annexure P2). Thereafter, she had passed the Teacher Eligibility Test for Classes 1 to IV, which was conducted by the said Board in the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Thus, she was eligible in terms of the Advertisement for being appointed as a JBT Teacher.

Rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the respondent Commission, is totally an arbitrary act, as the reason mentioned that the petitioner did not submit her Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate and JBT Teacher Certificate for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 at the time of 15 marks evaluation/ counseling, but she had submitted a Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate, which was issued in her favour on 01.08.2019 was incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that in fact, on the day of counseling, the ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 4 petitioner had taken all the certificates alongwith her, but the officials who were conducting the counseling, retained the latest .

one and this in fact led to rejection of candidature of the petitioner. He argued that the Press Note, in terms whereof, the list of disqualified candidates was displayed by the Commission, was cryptic as exact reason for disqualification was not clearly of mentioned therein, otherwise in terms of seven days period granted under Clause9 of the Advertisement, the petitioner would have rt had immediately alongwith her representation appended the Teacher Eligibility Test Certificates which were issued in her favour right from the year 2015 onwards. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that as the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria, as per the advertisement, the petition be allowed and respondents be directed to consider her case for appointment against the post of JBT in District Hamirpur under the OBC category, by preparing fresh result.

5. Learned counsel for the respondentCommission, submitted that as per Advertisement, the eligibility of a candidate was to be assessed as on 22.01.2019 till 11.59 p.m., as extended upto 08.02.2019 by way of a Corrigendum and as on the day of counseling, the petitioner did not submit the Teacher Eligibility Test Certificate relatable to the period prior to the cutoff date to assess her eligibility and submitted a certificate issued to her after ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 5 the said date, therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected by the Commission. He further submitted that though a representation .

was received from the petitioner in terms of Clause9 of the Advertisement, but the petitioner had not appended the earlier Teacher Eligibility Test certificate alongwith the representation, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the Commission for of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prayed that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed.

6. rt Learned Law Officer has adopted the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the Commission.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith including the application which has been filed by the parties.

8. In terms of the Advertisement, for appointed against the post of JBT, in addition to the requisite educational qualifications, a candidate was also required to submit a certificate that he has has passed Teacher Eligibility Test for Class 1 to 5,conducted by an Authority designated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner alongwith the petition has appended as Annexure P3 (Colly) the certificates issued in her favour by the H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala of having passed JBT Teacher Eligibility Test for the years 2015, ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 6 2016, 2017, 2018 and also 2019. Incidently the very first certificate issued to the petitioner in the year 2015 was valid for a .

period of seven years and the period of seven years of this very certificate was not over as on the date when the Advertisement in issue was published.

9. Be that as it may, fact of the matter remains that as on of the cutoff date prescribed in the Advertisement, as the petitioner was possessing four certificates issued in her favour by the H.P. rt Board of School Education of having passed JBT Teacher Eligibility Test from the year 2015 to the year 2018, but obvious, it is on this count that the petitioner applied for the post of JBT as she indeed was eligible on the date of Advertisement to have had applied for the post.

10. Under these circumstances, the contention of the respondentCommission that as on the date of counseling, the petitioner did not furnish the earlier certificates of TET, but submitted only the one, which was of a date post the last date envisaged in the Advertisement cannot be accepted.

11. In fact, this Court finds merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner as on the day of counseling had indeed taken all her Teacher Eligibility Test certificates, but the officials kept the last one and this appears to be a bonafide human error. Assuming, for the sake of arguments ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 7 that the petitioner inadvertently, despite possessing Teacher Eligibility Test certificate from the year 2015 onwards had .

submitted the certificate issued to her again by the Board which was relatable to the period post the cutoff date, then also in terms of Clause9 of the advertisement while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, clear reasons should have been spelled out, so that of the petitioner could have availed the opportunity to make good the discrepancies by way of representation. Having failed to do so, now rt the respondentCommission cannot be permitted to justify its act of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, because admittedly the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement for being considered for appointment against the post of JBT.

12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to a three Judge judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chariman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the General Rule is that while applying for the course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in the application form, as the case may be and that there can be no relaxation in this regard and similarly in order to avail the benefit of reservation or weightage etc., necessary certificates have ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 8 to be produced and these documents are in the nature of proof of holding of a particular qualification or percentage of marks secured .

or entitled for benefit of reservation, then depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Applying the principle laid of down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of this case, it is not as if the petitioner was not possessing the eligibility criteria as rt on the last date envisaged in the advertisement. The issue was only of submission of proof. Therefore, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, an opportunity indeed was required to be given to the petitioner by spelling out while rejecting her candidature as to why the same was not being done.

13. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, present Writ Petition is allowed by holding the act of the respondentCommission of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of her not possessing the Teacher Eligibility Test qualification to be bad in law, with further direction to the concerned respondents to evaluate the result of the petitioner, i.e. her result of written objective type screening test held on 12.05.2019, for the post of JBT (OBC Category) in District Hamirpur and if she is found meritorious, i.e. to say that if she is ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS 9 found to have secured more marks than the last candidate selected in the said category, then appointment be offered to her. Needful .

be done within a period of two months from today. Appointment if offered to the petitioner shall be prospective, either from the date of issuance of appointment order or expiry of two months period from today, whichever is earlier for all purposes. No candidate appointed of earlier shall be disturbed.

14. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous rt applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 05, 2023 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2023 20:33:28 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court