Allahabad High Court
U.P Public Service Commission Thru. Its ... vs Poonam Devi And Another on 5 September, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61305-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 822 of 2023 Appellant :- U.P Public Service Commission Thru. Its Chairman / Secy. , Prayagraj And Another Respondent :- Poonam Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Verma,Azad Khan,C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Prabhat Kumar Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
[C.M. Application No.1 of 2023 : Application for Condonation of Delay]
1. Heard.
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay is sufficient. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned.
[Order on appeal]
4. By means of this appeal, the Recruiting Agency i.e. U.P. Public Service Commission has challenged the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 passed in Writ-A No.7314 of 2022, allowing the said writ petition filed by the respondent No.1-petitioner.
5. The writ petition had been filed by the respondent No.1-petitioner being aggrieved by an order of appellant-Commission dated 19.10.2022 by which the respondent No.1-petitioner had been declared as not selected for the post of Staff Nurse. The only issue to be considered before the writ Court was as to whether the experience certificate annexed by the respondent No.1-petitioner was a valid one or not. The writ Court found it to be valid and allowed the petition.
6. The contention of the appellant's counsel herein is that as per the advertisement, the experience certificate was required to be signed by the Chief Medical Officer whereas the certificate which was annexed with the application for consideration for selection by the respondent No.1-petitioner and was dated 12.11.2021 had been signed by the Superintendent, Community Health Centre, Jarwal, Bahraich and it was countersigned by some person on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich, therefore, it was not in terms of the advertisement. This Court on 18.03.2024 had asked the State Government to verify as to who was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich on 12.11.2021 and whether on that date i.e. 12.11.2021 somebody else was holding the post/having charge of the post of Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. In response thereto, the State authorities have filed their affidavit which is sworn by Dr. Satish Kumar Gautam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. Para 8 of the said affidavit reads as under :-
"8. That the following information as required by this Hon'ble Court is stated hereinbelow:-
(i) That on 12.11.2021, Dr. Satish Kumar Singh was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. It is further stated that on 12.11.2021, no one was holding the post/having charge of the post of Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich.
(ii) That the record/copies of the Experience Certificate issued to Poonam Devi, Staff Nurse (Contract), wife of Sri Mukesh Kumar is available in the record of the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. True copy/photocopy of the relevant record with regard to Poonam Devi is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this affidavit.
(iii) That the Experience Certificate as well as No Objection Certificate issued to Poonam Devi, Staff Nurse (Contract), wife of Sri Mukesh Kumar has been counter-signed by Dr. Yogita Jain, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich."
7. From a reading of the said affidavit filed by the State Government, which is the employer for the post of Staff Nurse, what comes out is that Dr. Satish Kumar Singh was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich on 12.11.2021, therefore, no one was holding the "charge" of the said post. There is record/copies of the experience certificate issued to Poonam Devi, Staff Nurse (Contract) wife of Sri Mukesh Kumar available in the record of the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. The experience certificate as well as no objection certificate issued to Poonam Devi, Staff Nurse (Contract) i.e. the respondent No.1 herein has been countersigned by Dr. Yogita Jain, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich.
8. What comes out from the aforesaid is that though the certificate has not been signed by the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich who was available on the said date, nevertheless, the Additional Chief Medical Officer has countersigned it on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer. It is not the case of the State that the respondent No.1 does not have the said experience as mentioned in the certificate or that it is a fraudulent document. The document is also on record of the official opposite party i.e. the Office of Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. Moreover, we find that even as per the norms as mentioned in the order dated 19.10.2022 which was impugned before the writ Court, the Additional Chief Medical Officer could sign such certificate, if authorized by the Chief Medical Officer. In the facts of the case, it is not the case of the State, firstly, that the respondent No.1 had not actually worked for the period for which the experience certificate has been issued nor that the certificate is a fraudulent one. We do not know the circumstances in which the Additional Chief Medical Officer signed the certificate on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer. No action has been taken against the Additional Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich who has signed the Chief Medical Officer. For all practical and legal purposes, it is a valid document even as per the State Government, as per its affidavit and so do we, therefore, ahypertechnical approach in this regard is not required. Purely in the facts of this case and not as a general proposition, we are of the view that the judgment of the writ Court does not require any interference.
9. As regards reliance place by learned counsel for the Commission upon a learned Single Judge Bench decision dated 08.02.2023 rendered in Writ-A No.16355 of 2022 : Priya Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 13 Others, the facts of the case as discussed hereinabove are very different from the facts as discussed therein. Apart from the fact that there were various other illegality which is not the case here the learned Single Judge in the said case has discussed this aspect only in para 30 and the said discussion is purely on the facts of the said case, which as per the learned Single Judge is that admittedly the certificate for experience, which was furnished, had not been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. It was not the case there that the Additional Chief Medical Officer had signed it. The said judgment is purely on its own facts so far as this issue is concerned. Moreover, in para 33, the learned Single Judge has gone ahead to record that it is not the case of the petitioner therein that she was working with the hospital under a direct agreement.
10. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Shubhankar