Himachal Pradesh High Court
Monika Koti vs H.P. Public Service Commission on 8 October, 2020
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4276 of 2020
Date of decision: 08.10. 2020
.
Monika Koti ...Petitioner
Versus
H.P. Public Service Commission ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
The Hon'ble Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting1 : YES
For the Petitioner: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate
Through Video Conferencing
_____________________________________________________ _
Jyotsna Rewal Dua,J.
Respondent-Public Service Commission rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (School-New)-
English on the ground that she had not submitted requisite documents in support of her eligibility. Aggrieved, instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
2. Respondent-Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 02.11.2019 inviting online applications from 1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:18:16 :::HCHP 2eligible candidates for the posts of Lecturer (School-New)-English in the Department of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh. The last date for submission of applications was 22.11.2019. Check list, .
which was part of the advertisement, clearly stipulated that candidates must possess the documents in support of their eligibility before applying through online recruitment applications.
Relevant part thereof, for the purpose of adjudication of the present writ petition is reproduced hereinafter :-
"CHECK LIST"
.................................................................................
A candidate must possess the following documents before applying through ORA :-
1. Matriculation Certificate (age proof ).
2. Post Graduate Certificate in the concerned subject with 50% marks.
3. B.Ed. Certificate with 50% marks.
4. SC/ST/OBC Certificates (On parental basis), if applicable.
5. EWS(Economically Weaker Section) Certificate, if applicable.
6. BPL Certificate duly issued by the competent authority, if applicable.
7. WFF certificate on the prescribed Performa duly issued by the competent authority, if applicable.
IMPORTANT:- In order to ascertain his/her eligibility a candidate will have to submit a printout of Online Recruitment Application (ORA) alongwith self attested copies of all requisite documents (as per advertisement) in support of their eligibility for the concerned post(s) on the day of Computer Based Test/Written Examination failing which his/her candidature will be rejected straightway and no further opportunity will be given to such candidates to submit the documents. Non submission of requisite certificates will make them ineligible to sit in the examination/to appear in the evaluation/personality test. A candidate must ensure that no column is wrongly filled or kept blank as the ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:18:16 :::HCHP 3 information furnished therein would be used to determine the eligibility of candidates to be called for personality test/evaluation."
3. The petitioner participated in the selection process under the aforesaid advertisement as an OBC candidate. She .
qualified the written examination held on 16.02.2020 result of which was declared on 29.06.2020. The respondent thereafter circulated a list of 115 applicants, whose candidature was rejected for various reasons. Name of the petitioner figured in this list at Sr. No. 78. Her candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not submit requisite documents in support of her eligibility.
4. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner had not submitted the certificates reflecting her eligibility on the day of computer based test/written examination, however, the authorities present at the venue of holding the written examination had allowed her to undertake the examination. The petitioner was assured that in case of her qualifying the written examination, she would be allowed to appear in the interview and will be permitted to submit requisite documents in support of her eligibility at that time.
We are afraid, that the sole argument raised by the petitioner to challenge the rejection of her candidature is ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:18:16 :::HCHP 4 completely misconceived. The advertisement was very categoric that the certificates/documents reflecting the eligibility of the candidates were required to be submitted 'on the day of computer .
based test/written examination failing which his/her candidature was to be rejected straightaway and no further opportunity was to be given to such candidates to submit the documents'. Just because the petitioner was permitted to sit in the examination will not vest a right in her favour to seek acceptance of her candidature when admittedly, she had not submitted the requisite documents to prove her eligibility at the relevant time as per the advertisement.
In Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others (2011) 12 SCC 85, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection process. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:18:16 :::HCHP 5 advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would .
be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. r It will also be beneficial to refer to 2020 (3) SCC 108 Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. H.L. Kaveri and others, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision of Corporation in rejecting the application of a candidate for want of necessary experience certificate, which was to be enclosed alongwith the application form as required in the advertisement. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under :-
"14. It remains indisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the first respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:18:16 :::HCHP 6 and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11.11.2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.
.
15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision making process while rejecting the application of the 1st respondent for nonfulfilment of the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated 11.11.2013.
16. That apart, the post of Senior Assistant which remained vacant, as informed to this Court, even if it is considered that there is a reasonable justification for which the certificate could not have been enclosed by the first respondent along with the application, there are several other candidates who have obtained higher percentage in qualifying examination compared to the 1 st respondent whose applications have been rejected in view of not enclosing of self-attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicants for the post of Senior Assistant against the single post of women(SC) category, at least no indefensible right in the present circumstances, could have been claimed by the 1st respondent for her inclusion in the select list for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant. At the same time, for the post of Junior Assistant, 106 applications of the applicants were rejected by the Corporation for non-enclosing self-attested copies including that of the experience certificate and this fact has come on record that out of 10 vacancies advertised, only one post for physically handicapped remain vacant as the suitable candidate was not available, which indeed could not be converted to open/other reserved categories.
18. We would further like to observe that merely because the first respondent had approached the High Court by filing of a writ petition, that would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in overreaching the rights of the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment."
5. Petitioner was aware of the requirements of the advertisement whereunder all certificates to establish her eligibility for the post were to be submitted at the time of ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:18:16 :::HCHP 7 appearing in the written examination. As per her own admission, she did not produce these certificates at the relevant time.
Respondents, therefore, justly rejected her candidature.
.
We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The pending applications, if any also stand dismissed.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ),
Judge
8th October, 2020 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2020 20:18:16 :::HCHP