Aradhana Tembhre vs M.P. Public Service Commission and Others

This appeal is directed against an order dated 3.7.2013 in W.P. No. 11072/2013, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant for furnishing her credential to the respondents was dismissed on the ground that the aforesaid documents could not be filed before the cut-off date. It is submitted by the appellant that the appellant could not become aware in respect of the declaration of the result, as it was declared after more than 15 months from the date of examination and that too on internet and in the newspaper ''Rojgar & Nirman'' and as per the advertisement of the examination and brochure there was no previous declaration that the results would be declared by the aforesaid mode. It is submitted that because of aforesaid exigency the appellant could not furnish the aforesaid documents for verification, however all the attested documents were already submitted by the appellant and only documents were to be verified. It is submitted that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.A. No. 636/2013 (Somdutt Dixit Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission & others) dated 17.7.2013 and similar directions may be issued in the present case also.

The aforesaid position is not disputed by Shri Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondents.

In W.A. No. 636/2013 this Court considering similar controversy held thus:-

17.7.2013.

Shri Avinash Zargar for appellant in W.A. No. 636/2013.

Shri Atul Choudhary for appellant in W.A. No. 631/2013.

Shri K.S. Wadhwa for the respondents.

This order shall decide W.A. No. 636/13 and W.A. No. 631/13 involving similar question based on similar circumstances.

W.A. No. 636/13 is directed against an order dt. 3.7.2013 passed in W.P. No. 10965/13 by which a writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the writ Court. The facts of the case are that the appellant was successful in the State Service Examination � 2010 conducted by the respondent No. 1. The aforesaid examination was conducted by the respondent between 18.12.2011 and 4.1.2012. Thereafter the process of the examination was stayed by the Division Bench of the High Court Bench at Indore and ultimately another round of examination in respect of remaining candidates was held between 3.2.13 and 10.2.13, thereafter the result was declared on 27.4.13. The result was declared on the website and was also published in newspaper Rojgar & Nirman on 6.5.13. As per the notification of the result, all the successful candidates were required to furnish their attested copies of the documents on or before 21.5.2013 in the office of respondent No. 3. It appears that the appellant could not know the declaration of the result and could not file the aforesaid documents before the last date of furnishing the documents, but, thereafter he had sent the documents by registered post which were not accepted by the respondent No. 3. There was delay of 21 days in filing the aforesaid documents.

In W.A. No. 631/13 the case of the appellant is that she could not furnish documents as she was not aware in respect of declaration of result and had offered her attested documents on 22.5.2013 which was one day after the cut-off date.

Writ petition was filed by the appellant for a direction to the respondents to accept the aforesaid documents. The writ petition was filed on 24.6.13, but, it appears that the interviews for the PSC were not commenced on the aforesaid date which have commenced from 8.7.2013. The last date of interviews is 23.8.2013 as per the schedule. The sole contention of the appellant before this Court is that the appellant could not become aware in respect of declaration of the result on website and also in respect of publication of the result in newspaper Rojgar & Nirman and as soon as he became aware immediately sent the documents to the respondent No. 1 for consideration of his candidature for the PSC selection. Appellant was informed vide Annexure-P/1 dt. 17.6.13 that his candidature was rejected because of non-furnishing of the aforesaid documents before the last date that was 21.5.13. Learned single Judge considered the case and found that the appellant was at fault in not furnishing the documents before the cut-off date and dismissed the writ petition. This has caused the appellant to file this appeal.

It is submitted by the appellant that because of not knowing about declaration of the result, the documents could not be furnished before the cut-off date, however, the documents were sent immediately thereafter, but, were not accepted by the respondent. It is submitted that interviews are going on and appellant may be permitted to participate in the interviews.

The prayer is vehemently opposed by Shri K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel appearing for the respondents who has submitted that the appellant ought to have observed the cut-off date and once the documents were not filed before the cut-off date, the appellant is not entitled to appear in the interview. In respect of his contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1998 91 (SC) Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and a Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and ors., reported in 1999 (2) SLR 444.

In this case, the appellant had appeared in the State Services Examination - 2010 which was conducted between 18.12.11 and 4.1.12. The advertisement Annexure-P/2 does not reveal that the result of such examination shall be declared on website or it would be published in the newspaper Rojgar & Nirman. After conduction of the examination, the result was declared on 27.4.13 initially on website and subsequently in the newspaper on 6.5.2013 in Rojgar & Nirman. It is not disputed by the other side that such result was not declared in other newspapers having circulation in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The only contention of the respondents before this court is that the appellant ought to have followed the schedule fixed in the matter and in absence of that he was not entitled to furnish his documents after the cut-off date i.e. 21.5.13 and once he had not furnished the documents in time, he is not entitled to participate in the interview process.

Before considering the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to look into the decisions filed by the respondents opposing the petition. In State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt the question before the Apex Court was that a candidate should possess technical qualification on a particular date and a cut-off date was provided for acquiring some technical qualification and in that prospective the Apex Court held that a cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. The aforesaid judgment is on different footings and is not applicable in the present case as there is no dispute that on the date of application, the appellant was possessing all the requisite qualification.

In Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) the similar question was before the Apex Court that a candidate should possess eligibility on a particular cut-off date and if he was not possessing such eligibility criteria on a particular date he was entitled to participate in the selection process. The aforesaid judgment is also not applicable in the present case.

In Braj Kishor Prasad (supra) a Full Bench of Patna High Court was considering the similar issue, but, considering the peculiar facts of the case the Full Bench of Patna High Court, held that in appropriate cases where extreme hardship or injustice has resulted on account of factors beyond the control of the concerned candidate, the High court may grant relief in deserving cases. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the question in the present case may be looked into. In this case, it is not in dispute that in the advertisement Annexure-P/2, there was no declaration that the result of the examination would be declared on website or it would be published in newspaper Rojgar & Nirman. No publicity in the local newspaper or the newspapers having circulation in the State of Madhay Pradesh was given. As per the appellant he could not know the result of the examination and could not submit his documents to the respondents, though specific averments were already made in the application in respect of possessing eligibility qualification for the examination. The only contention of the appellant is that he may be permitted to submit his documents so that he may participate in the interview process. It is not the case where the appellant was not eligible on particular date, but, he was eligible and was successful for the main examination of State Services Examination-2010. The result was declared after more than 14 months from the date of the examination and appellant herein was not party to the writ petition which was filed at the Indore Bench because of which the result was stayed. As the appellant could not know the result which was published only on website and was published in only one newspaper Rojgar & Nirman and was not published in other newspapers, the appellant has made out a special case for hard-ship and if he is not permitted to furnish his documents of which particulars were already furnished by him, he will be deprived to participate in the interview process. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the appellant has made out a case for extreme hard-ship or injustice which has resulted on account of factors beyond the control of the appellant and he is entitled to be allowed one opportunity to furnish his documents to respondent No. 1 so that after verification of the documents, if the appellant is found entitled to appear in the interview process his candidature may be considered by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid, we allow both the appeals with the following directions:

(1) The appellants to furnish all their documents duly attested in the office of respondent No. 1 within a period of two weeks from today.

(2) On furnishing such documents, respondent No. 1 will examine the documents and if the appellants are eligible for the interview, the respondents shall permit the appellants to participate in the interview process which is at present going on.

Considering the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

C.C. as per rules.

As the controversy has already been decided in W.A. No. 636/2013, this appeal is also disposed of finally in terms of the directions issued in W.A. No. 636/2013. The aforesaid directions shall be applicable in the present case, as far as they are applicable.

No order as to costs. C.C., as per rules.