Bhupendra Singh Majera and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.—This writ petition has challenged the decision of the Committee constituted in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 1066 of 2011 (S/S), in its meeting held on 01.01.2012 and also sought for a writ of mandamus declaring the hostile discrimination meted out against the petitioners in the matter of appointment as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners further sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners against the available vacancies to the post of Assistant Accountant when less meritorious candidates have been appointed, as arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, a writ of mandamus has been asked to forthwith appoint the petitioners to the post of Assistant Accountant from due date, as per their ranking in the merit list, with all consequential benefits. The short fact leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioners and each of them alongwith other eligible candidates duly and successfully participated in the selection process for filling up of the post of Assistant Accountant in the Treasury Deptt. of the State of Uttarakhand. There is no dispute that the petitioners and each of them were successful in written examination and it is undisputed fact that the petitioners and each of them were selected in the test, however, their appointment was denied as they do not possess the computer certificate issued by any institute recognized by the State or Govt. Department. It is the case of the writ petitioners that there is no recognized institute who undertakes the computer course and issue certificate. Further case of the petitioners is that there are other candidates who without producing any certificate issued by the recognized institute, have been appointed whereas the petitioners have been left out.

I have seen the statement and averment made in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. It appears that the respondents authority have successfully established the fact that there are number of institutes which have been recognized by the Government for imparting computer education and eligible to issue certificate. On this score, I feel that the petitioners'' case cannot succeed. Only point which has appealed to this Court is that whether any other candidates not having any requisite computer certificate from any recognized institute has been given any appointment or not.

In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioners have asserted that none of 14 persons who were appointed and joined duties in August, 2011 possessed ''O'' level certificate from D.O.E.A.C.C. The institutes from which diploma/certificate in computer course was obtained by these 14 persons were not recognized by the Central or the State Government or Kumaon University which has granted Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application is neither recognized nor authorised by the University Grant Commission for running such a course. This paragraph 9 of the writ petition has been dealt with in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. It is not denied the fact that those persons were not given appointment. Merely, it is stated that list of selected candidates was prepared district-wise and an Enquiry Committee was constituted to verify their certificates issued to them by the various computer institutes. The district-wise details of candidates and the details whether their certificates were suitable or not are given in the said paragraph.

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that out of 14 candidates who were selected and taken charge, the certificate of only 8 candidates were found to be in order by the Enquiry Officer. Nothing has been mentioned what had happened to the remaining 6 candidates. It is not denied the fact that these persons have no requisite computer certificate.

Under this circumstance, I accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners and, repel the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are entitled to be appointed though they are having computer certificate issued by the institutes not recognized by the State or Central Govt. or Kumaon University. The petitioners should be given appointment as it has been given to other six persons. The fact that computer certificate is not an essential requirement is not questioned. Moreover, the petitioners had taken computer test duly and successfully. Therefore, production of computer certificate, in my view, cannot be a mandatory criteria otherwise the respondents would not have issued appointment to said six persons.

Accordingly, I direct the respondents to accommodate the petitioners to any vacant posts, if available today, if the appointment of six persons are retained, I cannot cancel their appointment on any ground as they were not parties before me. If the vacancies are not available, then the petitioners shall be accommodated in the future vacancy which would be available. No recruitment process to the post of Assistant Accountant shall be undertaken without appointing the petitioners, provided of course six candidates as above are retained in services. The writ petition is disposed of.