Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

participate in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics), Government Degree College, pursuant to the selection in question;

         (iv)      To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

                   of    mandamus          commanding         the   respondent
authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that respondent no.1 issued an advertisement dated 04.12.2021 inviting applications for 455 posts of Assistant Professor in various Government Degree Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. Out of these, 36 posts were for Physics, of which 22 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. As per the advertisement, the selection process comprised short-listing on the basis of Academic Performance Indicator (API) score, followed by interview, and final selection was to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the interview. The petitioner applied online pursuant to the said advertisement and was declared successful in the short-listing result dated 13.04.2022, whereafter she was required to submit relevant documents by 04.05.2022, which she admittedly submitted. Thereafter, 2026:UHC:138-DB in June, 2024, respondent no.1 uploaded a tentative ineligibility list dated 03.06.2024, proposing rejection of certain candidates, including the petitioner. Subsequently, a final rejection list dated 30.09.2024 was published, declaring the petitioner ineligible. Hence, the present writ petition.

2026:UHC:138-DB

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that under Clause 4(1) read with Table 3(B) of the advertisement, API scores are strictly dependent on percentage of marks obtained. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted only the final year marksheet of M.Sc., without producing documents reflecting total marks obtained and maximum marks for the entire Master's degree, making verification of API score impossible. The tentative ineligibility list dated 03.06.2024 was duly uploaded on the website, published through public notice in newspapers, and intimation was sent to the registered e- mail IDs of candidates, including the petitioner, granting 15 days' time to submit objections, i.e., till 18.06.2024. The petitioner failed to submit any representation within the stipulated time. Consequently, in terms of Clause 13(1)(3) of the advertisement, she was finally declared ineligible vide notification dated 30.09.2024. It is further submitted that pursuant to the selection process, interviews were conducted in January, 2025, final results declared on 13.02.2025, and appointments have already been made.

5. Learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.12.2021 and was initially shortlisted. It is also not disputed that verification of API score was an essential condition under the 2026:UHC:138-DB advertisement. The material on record establishes that the petitioner failed to submit documents showing total marks obtained and maximum marks for the Master's degree, which was essential for calculating percentage and verifying API score. The respondent Commission has placed on record that the tentative ineligibility list was published, objections were invited within a specified time, and intimation was sent on the registered e-mail ID of the petitioner. Despite opportunity, the petitioner failed to submit objections within time. Though the petitioner has contended non-receipt of e-mail, despite direction of this Court dated 13.11.2024, she failed to file a supplementary affidavit denying receipt of such communication. This omission adversely affects her credibility. It is a settled principle that terms of the advertisement are binding, and neither the Court nor the recruiting authority can dilute or relax eligibility conditions after commencement of the selection process.