Aakriti Bahuguna vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission-respondent and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the disqualification list notified by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short the "Commission") on 15.11.2019; and a writ of mandamus directing that she be allowed to appear in the Uttarakhand Judicial Service, Civil Judge (J.D.) Main Examination, for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), by accepting her form and fees for the same.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination of Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (J.D.)-2019 on 01.09.2019. It is her case that, on 15.11.2019 a notification was published on the website of the respondent-Commission stating that the date of submission of the fees for the Main Examination was till 25.11.2019; in the said notification, the petitioner found her name among the 23 disqualified candidates; after clearing the preliminary examination, she was waiting for intimation/information, through any means of communication, by the respondent-Commission for filling up the form for the main examination, and for depositing the fees; there was no intimation/ information provided to the petitioner; she is a woman candidate, domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand, residing at Delhi; after clearing the preliminary examination, she had the legitimate expectation to be intimated by the respondent-Commission that the form, for the main examination, should be filled; and omission on the part of the respondent-Commission, to inform her of the requirement of submitting her application form for the main examination along with the requisite fees, is arbitrary and illegal.

Today Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Commission, has placed before us a copy of the Notification dated 04.10.2019 issued by the respondent-Commission, whereby all candidates were informed that the results of the preliminary examination had been declared on 04.10.2019, and that the application form for the main examination, as downloaded from the website of the respondent-Commission, should be submitted, along with the testimonials, in the Office of the respondent-Commission on or before 25.10.2019. The mode and manner of payment, and the last date for making such payment, was prescribed in the said notification as 19.10.2019. It was also intimated thereby that the main examination was scheduled to be held on 25.10.2019.

On the same day i.e. 04.10.2019, the respondent-Commission sent a requisition to four major daily newspapers i.e. Dainik Jagran, Dainik Hindustan and Rashtriya Sahara (Hindi newspapers), and Indian Express (English Daily), requesting them to publish the notification dated 04.10.2019. Also enclosed, among the documents placed for the perusal by Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, are copies of the newspaper clippings of Dainik Hindustan and Rashtriya Sahara dated 05.10.2019 wherein the notification dated 04.10.2019 was published. Copies of all the aforesaid documents were also perused by Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Even on the petitioner's own showing, she came to know of her being disqualified on accessing the website of the respondent-Commission on 15.11.2019. She does not even state as to how she came to know that she had passed the preliminary examination. It is also not in dispute that all information, including details of the candidates who passed in the preliminary examination, is available on the website of the respondent-Commission, besides its publication in four major newspapers.

The petitioner, having failed to appear for the main examination and having failed to pay the prescribed fees on time, cannot now contend that, for her failure to secure the information from the website of the respondent-Commission, she should now be permitted to appear in the main examination. In any event, the main examination has already been held, and the results have already been declared.

We see no reason, therefore, to grant the petitioner the relief sought for by her in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.