Deepak Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sagar Kothari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the third 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 impugned selection list issued in May 2018, in so far as it relates to the non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as having been selected pursuant to the selection process initiated by the advertisement dated 06.09.2017, and to include his name in the list of the selected candidates for the post of Medical Officer (Ordinary Grade) by including the marks of experience of the petitioner of ten months and twenty seven days.

It is the petitioner's case that a total of 20 marks are awarded for work experience in selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Medical Officers; the services rendered by the applicant, in the State Government/ Central Government/Army/UTs/ Central Government undertakings, are taken into consideration in awarding marks under this head; while candidates, who have work experience of more than six months and less than one year, are awarded 2.5 marks, candidates with one year work experience are awarded 05 marks, candidates with two years work experience are awarded 10 marks, candidates with three years work experience are awarded 15 marks, and candidates with four or more than four years work experience are awarded 20 marks; the petitioner had a work experience of one year and ten months, and ought to have been awarded 7.25 marks, instead of 05 marks, since his work experience is of more than one year six months; and, if 7.25 marks had been awarded to him, he would have been selected and appointed as a Medical Officer.

Sri Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the third respondent, would submit that the prescribed criteria does not provide for awarding proportionate marks for work experience between one and two years; a candidate who has one year work experience is awarded 05 marks, and those who have two years work experience are awarded 10 marks; any candidate, who has less than two years experience, could only have been awarded 05 marks, and not 7.5 marks; and, even otherwise, the work experience of the petitioner is not continuous, but is in different spells.

It is unnecessary for us to dwell on this issue any further, since Sri Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, instead of adjudicating this issue in the present proceedings, it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the third respondent; and the third respondent is directed to consider the said representation, in accordance with law, within a specified time frame.

Sri Sagar Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, has no objection for such an order to be passed.

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the third respondent within ten days from today. If any such representation is made, the third respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law, pass a reasoned order thereupon, and communicate the same to the petitioner with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.