Uttarakhand High Court
Shalinee vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 June, 2017
Author: Manoj K. Tiwari
Bench: Manoj K. Tiwari
WPSS No. 1807 of 2014 Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel alongwith Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Mukesh Kaparwan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner participated in the selection for the post of Computer Programmer/Computer Operator, pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.05.2011 (annexure no.1 to the writ petition) issued by respondent no.2. A number of vacancies in Forest Department were advertised by the said advertisement and petitioner applied for the post of Computer Programmer/Computer Operator. He further submits that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and there are as many as seven vacancies reserved for persons belonging to Schedule Caste category. He points out that out of seven posts, three posts are still lying vacant and no one has been recommended for appointment against these three vacancies.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner participated in the written examination, result whereof declared on 22.02.2014 and petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, candidates, successful in the written examination, were called for document verification. At that stage, petitioner was informed that diploma in Computer Science possessed by him is in variance with the requirement of the advertisement. He further submits points out that according to the advertisement, each candidate should possess diploma in Computer Application. Thus, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed by petitioner.
In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2-Secretary, Uttarakhand Technical Education Board, it is stated that petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement, therefore, he is not eligible.
The objection raised by respondent no.2/ Uttarakhand Technical Education Board is that instead of diploma in Computer Application, petitioner was possessing diploma in Computer Science.
Shri Kishore Kumar, Advocate submits that while pursuing diploma in Computer Science, petitioner had studied the same subjects, which a student of diploma in Computer Application course studies. He submits that difference is only of nomenclature. He further submits that petitioner possesses B.Tech Degree in Information Technology in addition to diploma in Electronic & Communication Engineering. His contention is that the respondent has taken a pedantic approach while rejecting petitioner's claim for appointment.
This Court is of the opinion that the issue, whether diploma in Computer Science is equivalent to diploma in Computer Application, can be best decided by the experts in the relevant field. Although, right to be considered for public employment is a fundamental right, but that is subject to fulfilling the conditions of eligibility. Therefore, the interest of justice would be served, if Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Uttarakhand is directed to constitute a committee of experts in the relevant field to consider the question as to whether diploma in Computer Science may be treated as equivalent to diploma in Computer Application.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to Secretary, Department of Technical Education Government of Uttarakhand to constitute a committee of experts in the relevant field to decide the question of equivalence of the diploma in Computer Science possessed by the petitioner to the diploma in Computer application. Such committee shall consist of not less than three members and shall be constituted within four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The committee shall take a decision in the matter within eight weeks thereafter.
If the committee reaches at the conclusion that the diploma possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the diploma in Computer Application, then appropriate orders in favour of the petitioner shall be passed within a month thereafter.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 08.06.2017 Mamta