Dr. Ashok Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been invoked by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the final list of ineligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professors, published by the Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board, in so far as petitioner is concerned; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare that the petitioner possesses the eligibility/educational qualification/experience to the post of Assistant Professor (Pediatrics) as per the conditions of the advertisement dated 26.09.2018; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner, for the post of Assistant Professor (Pediatrics), against the advertisement dated 26.09.2018, inasmuch as the petitioner possesses the prescribed qualifications.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner claims to have joined the Government Medical College, Haldwani pursuant to a walk-in interview held on 27.08.2015, and to have been appointed as an Assistant Professor in the department of Pediatrics on a contractual basis. The 3rd respondent issued an advertisement on 26.09.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection and appointment to 138 posts of Assistant Professors in Government Medical Colleges in the State. The last date for submission of application forms was 26.10.2018. Out of these 138 posts which were sought to be filled up, 05 posts were that of Assistant Professor (Pediatrics).

Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application form wherein he recorded his work experience as a Senior Resident (Pediatrics) in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh from 07.02.2015 to 20.10.2015. He claims to have submitted an NOC, from the office of the Principal of Government Medical College, Haldwani dated 23.10.2018, in support of his claim that he has been working in the post of Assistant Professor, on a contractual basis, in the said college ever since 29.10.2015. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner made no mention, in his online application form, of his having work experience at the Government Medical College, Haldwani.

The 3rd respondent issued a list of ineligible candidates on 20.12.2018, wherein the petitioner's name was also reflected. Objections were invited, from those who were found ineligible, regarding their ineligibility. The petitioner submitted a representation on 21.12.2018 enclosing thereto a copy of the NOC issued by the Government Medical College, Haldwani dated 23.10.2018. After the petitioner submitted his objections, the 3rd respondent again issued a final list of ineligible candidates wherein also the petitioner's name is reflected. On the ground that he was not called for interview, the petitioner has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

The stand of the respondents, in their counter affidavit, is that under the head "work experience", in column no. 3 of the application form submitted online by him, the petitioner only referred to his experience at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh from 07.02.2015 to 20.10.2015, and the duration as eight months and thirteen days. The advertisement specifically stipulated a minimum experience, of one year as a Senior Resident (Pediatrics), for a candidate to be held eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioner made no reference, in column no. 3 of his online application form, of his work experience at the Government Medical College, Haldwani; and, since the information submitted by him in his application form disclosed that he did not possess the minimum experience of one year, his application was rejected and his name was included in the list of ineligible candidates.

Clause 15 (4) of the advertisement dated 26.09.2018 stipulates that no changes would be permitted to be made in the online application form. Clause 13 (4) of the said advertisement stipulates that, in case there are any defects in the application forms, it is open to the applicant to seek cancellation of the said application form, and to submit a fresh application form. The petitioner did not submit a fresh application form.

The petitioner's claim for grant of relief is based on the fact that, pursuant to publication of the impugned list of ineligible candidates, those who were found ineligible were permitted to submit their objections thereto; he had submitted his objections stating that he had enclosed a certificate from the Government Medical College, Haldwani along with his application form; and if such experience had been added to his experience as a Senior Resident at Chandigarh, he possessed the prescribed qualifications of a minimum experience of one year as a Senior Resident (Pediatrics).

The impugned list of ineligible candidates issued by the 3rd respondent contains the names of candidates who were found ineligible. The petitioner's name is reflected therein at serial no. 94. He was found ineligible on the ground that his teaching experience was only eight months, and the said experience was not as per the MCI-TEQ Norms. It is true that the ineligible candidates were permitted, by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.12.2018, to submit their objections regarding their ineligibility. That, however, did not confer any right on the petitioner to seek alteration of the online application form submitted by him earlier, or to contend that, in the column "work experience", his experience in the Government Medical College, Haldwani should also be included.

This question is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court, in Yamini Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand & another (order in Special Appeal No. 76 of 2010 dated 08.06.2010), has held that, as he had failed to fill up the column in the application form, the applicant's claim was rightly rejected by the authorities concerned. The law declared by a Division Bench of this Court, in Yamini Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand & another, was followed by us in our order in Special Appeal No. 149 of 2019 dated 03.04.2019.

Since the third respondent had rightly rejected the petitioner's candidature based on his application form, which showed that he did not possess the required work experience of one year, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.