Amit Kumar Singh & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

The petitioners before this Court are the unsuccessful candidates who had participated in the selection process which was for the posts of Personal Assistant/Stenographer in various Government Departments in the State of Uttarakhand. The selection was being made by a body known as "Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission" i.e. respondent no. 4.

Respondent no. 4 issued an advertisement dated 20.11.2015 on its website which was also published in newspapers, having wide circulation in the State, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the posts of Personal Assistant/Stenographer in various departments, such as, Technical Education Department, Irrigation Department, Office of District Magistrate, Chamoli, Dairy Development Department, etc. In all there were 16 departments. The total number of posts to be filled were 176. The candidates, who were the applicants and having the requisite qualifications, were also required to give preference for the Departments.

Presently, the only challenge is made to the selection made on the posts of Personal Assistant/Stenographer in the Irrigation Department. The Court, therefore, confines itself to this challenge alone.

The dispute, herein, is limited to the qualifications which were given in the advertisement for the post of Personal Assistant/Stenographer in the Irrigation Department. Whereas in all other departments, for the same posts, the qualification was 10+2 with speed of 80 words per minute in Hindi Stenography and 25 words per minute in Hindi Typing along with knowledge of computer, which was common to the posts in all the Departments, but for the Irrigation Department and Rural Development Department, there was an additional qualification of possessing a 'CCC Certificate' from an Institute known as DOEACC. Petitioners as well as the private respondents had participated in the written examination and those, who qualified the written examination, were called for the typing test and thereafter, only the candidates, who qualified the typing test, were ultimately called for the shorthand test. Finally, the list of selected candidates was published by the Commission. The Commission, at the time of publishing the list, noticed a discrepancy which was that many of the selected candidates were not having 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC, yet they had given their preference for the posts of Personal Assistant/ Stenographer in the Irrigation Department, where qualification of 'CCC Certificate' was mandatory. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 13.10.2017 was given to such candidates as to why their names be not deleted from the list of selected candidates. Each of the selected candidates, thereafter, gave their representation(s) to the Commission, stating therein, that it was not evident in the advertisement that the preference of possessing the 'CCC Certificate' for the Department of Irrigation and Rural Development Department was to be extended. Moreover, this qualification i.e. 'CCC Certificate' was never made an essential qualification in the Rules of either the Irrigation Department or the Rural Development Department.

Their argument, however, did not find favour with the Commission. Thereafter, the selected candidates approached the State Government and the State Government directed the Secretary of the Commission that the Rules, pertaining to the Stenographer in the Irrigation Department known as "Irrigation Department, Uttaranchal Service of Stenographer (Group 'C') Rules, 2003 actually prescribe the qualification for appointment on the post of Stenographer, and at Rule 8 and Rule 9 there is no such requirement under the aforesaid Rules that a candidate should also have a qualification of 'CCC Certificate' from DEOACC. Therefore, the State Government vide its letter dated 29.12.2017 directed that the selection must be made strictly in accordance with the Rules and therefore asking for requirement of 'CCC Certificate' from the selected candidates for the post of Personal Assistant/Stenographer will not be taken into consideration. The reply to this letter was given by the Commission on 12.01.2018 reiterating that the qualification in the advertisement was one of the essential qualifications for the posts of Personal Assistant/Stenographer in the Irrigation Department and Rural Development Department and, therefore, changing the Rules, after the commencement of selection process by the Commission, would not be proper.

The Principal Secretary to the State Government vide letter dated 09.02.2018, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranajit Kumar Meher Vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 568 has stated that the advertisement cannot override the Rules and selection is to be made strictly as per the Rules and not as per the advertisement and therefore the State Government emphasized that complying with the Rules would be appropriate in this matter, which is also in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequent to that letter, the select list has been prepared, which is now challenged before this Court. This Court has also been informed that thereafter, many of the appointments have already been made.

The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that private respondents had participated in the selection process and since they were declared unsuccessful, they approached the State Government and got the Rules amended in their favour, which is in clear violation of the law and is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

This argument cannot be accepted inasmuch as in this case, there has been no change in the "Rules". In fact, it is the Rules which are being presently followed. The Rules nowhere stipulate that a candidate for the post of Personal Assistant/Stenographer in Irrigation Department must have a 'CCC Certificate' as an essential qualification. What was being done by the State Government was the proper method directing the Commission to correct its approach under the facts of the case. It is also in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranajit Kumar (supra).

The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private respondents had participated in the selection process and having full knowledge that they were not qualified, they had given preference for the Irrigation Department.

This argument again is not correct. The selection was not being made only for the Irrigation Department but it was a combined selection which was being made for as many as 16 Departments for the posts of Personal Assistant/Stenographer. It is true that selected candidates should have refrained from giving their choice to the posts, for which, as per the advertisement, they were not qualified, but then, this is not such a big lapse which may call for the cancellation of the entire selection process. The fact of the matter is that 'CCC Certificate' qualification was never an essential qualification under the Rules and therefore, insistence of such qualification, even by way of an advertisement, is not proper. It cannot be said that those candidates, who have been selected for the post of Personal Assistant/Stenographer, do not have the qualifications as per the Rules. That being the case, since the candidates possessed all the required qualifications for the posts and they have been regularly selected by a duly constituted Commission, any kind of interference at this stage would not be proper.

The third argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the qualifications prescribed by the Irrigation Department in any case, is not violative of the Rules but the same is also in consonance with the Government Order dated 08.03.2011. Although, in the Rules, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that 'CCC Certificate' is not an essential qualification but in the Government Order dated 08.03.2011 states that as the pay structure in the Government, will be revised, therefore for the post of Stenographer, apart from having the Hindi Shorthand, Hindi typing speed, possessing of 'CCC Certificate' from the DOEACC would also be an essential qualification. However, again a bare perusal of the order shows that it is not the Government Order prescribing eligibility for the post. This order is only "advisory" in nature. It is an advice to the various departments that in view of the fact that the pay scale of Personal Assistants Grade I and Grade II, including the post of Stenographer has been revised, they should make an amendment in the service Rules incorporating qualifications. The fact remains that these qualifications have not been incorporated in the Rules. Extending this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners would further argue that in any case, typing and stenography tests were not the qualifications under the Rules and therefore since they have also been followed by the Commission, it cannot be said that they will follow one part of the Rules and would discard the other part. This argument of the petitioners is again incorrect. No one has made a challenge before any forum as to why typing and shorthand test is being made compulsory. On the other hand, it is an essential requirement in all Class III posts particularly typing and knowledge of computer operations.

As has already been referred above, Rule 8 of the Irrigation Department, Uttaranchal Service of Stenographer (Group C), Rules, 2003 prescribes for academic qualifications and Rule 9 of the said Rules prescribes for preferential qualification where knowledge of computer operation is one of the preferential qualification and therefore it cannot be said that having typing test as an essential qualification for the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistant is totally de hors the Rules.

The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Commission had obtained the advice, not from the appointing authority i.e. Secretary Irrigation but from the Principal Secretary (Personnel).

Again in these matters, all appointments of the Government, under Rules of Business are done by the Personnel Department. Therefore, this argument of the petitioners also fails.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.