Dr. Deepti Shukla vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is to the order/letter dated 14.8.2008 issued by the respondents whereby candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon has been rejected on the ground that he had not annexed the registration certificate along with her application. Facts of the case in brief are that advertisement dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-2) was published for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon in the department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the said post being an un-reserved candidate. Application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that she had not attached the registration certificate of Veterinary Council of India along with the application form.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not required to annex the certificate issued by the Veterinary Council of India. He submits that said registration was merely prescribed as one of the eligibility criteria and in clause X of the said advertisement different certificates and documents have been shown which were to be filed along with the application form but it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner was also required to attach the registration certificate. He submits that in the application form in column No. 14 requirement of mentioning the educational qualification is there and according to which candidate was required to submit certificates of high school examination, higher secondary examination, graduation and post graduation and then there is a column mentioning others. However, in the said column also only the educational qualification is to be given and not about the registration certificate. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in the entire application form and the advertisement it is nowhere provided to submit the registration certificate. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is duly registered with the M.P. State Veterinary council (hereinafter referred to as Council for brevity) under the provisions of Indian Veterinary Council Act 1984 and once she is having the valid registration with the said council, mere non filing of the same would not debar her from participating in the selection process. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, ; the decisions of this Court in the matter of Shweta Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and another rendered on 20.11.2010 in WP (S) 5297/2010 and in the matter of Ram Ashish Shrivastava and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and another reported in 2011 (1) CG.L.R.W. 204. He submits that considering the fact that the petitioner had a good case in her favour, on 19.11.2008 an interim order was passed permitting her to appear in the interview and the result of the said interview was subject to the decision of the writ petition. He submits that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner had appeared in the interview but the result has not been declared on account of pendency of this writ petition.

Counsel for the respondents submits that filing of registration certificate of the council was mandatory in order to ascertain the eligibility of the candidate for the purpose of processing the candidature and participation in the interview. He submits that it is a question of common knowledge that if a candidate is not registered with the Council under the Act of 1984, he/she would not be eligible even to participate in the examination. He submits that all the clauses of the advertisement have to be read together and thus reading clauses 4 and 10 together makes it clear that filing of the registration certificate was mandatory even if it was not specifically mentioned in the advertisement. He submits that in column 4, essential qualification has been mentioned and according to which the candidate is required to have the degree of B.V.Sc. and Animal Husbandry from Indian or Foreign university apart from having registration under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. He submits that as per clause X of the advertisement, it has been clarified as to what documents are to be filed along with the application and in the absence of such documents; application of the candidate is liable to be rejected. According to him, as per clause 10.b of the advertisement a candidate was required to file the proof of educational qualification, degree, PG degree and the experience certificate etc. and the word etc." would also include the filing of registration certificate, and as in the case in hand, no such document was filed, her candidature was rightly rejected because eligibility of the petitioner could not have been ascertained on the basis of the documents enclosed with the application form. In support of his arguments he also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, Counsel for the intervener submits that the intervener has been placed at S. No. 1 in the wait list and on account of the interim order, the appointment order has not been given to her as the result of the petitioner has not been declared and as one post is blocked on account of the interim order passed by this Court.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

In Clause IV of the advertisement dated 14.3.2008 the essential qualification has been laid down as under:

Clauses 9 & 10 (10.A to 10.1) of the said advertisement read as under:-

A bare reading of the aforesaid clauses makes it clear that the candidate was required to possess all the educational qualifications on or before filling in the application form. Clause IX makes it clear that the candidate is required to have the graduation degree in the concerned subject and he was also required to have his/her registration with the Council. Likewise, in clause 10 and its sub clauses, various certificates have been shown to be annexed along with the application form. In none of the clauses it has been shown that the candidate is required to file or annex the certificate issued by the Council.

In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner was registered with the Council on the date of filling in the application form. However, she had not annexed the copy of the said certificate along with the application form. Merely non annexing copy of the certificate would not disentitle the petitioner to be considered for her appointment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon especially when in the entire advertisement it was nowhere mentioned that the candidate was required to file or annex the copy of the said certificate. If respondents have not mentioned in the advertisement about annexing copy of the said certificate and if any candidate like the petitioner does not file or annex the same, respondents could have verified from the petitioner as to whether she possessed the same or not. Normally, the agency which is taking the examination or the appointing authority is not required to make any such correspondence. However, when filing or annexing such document has not been shown in the advertisement, for the safer side before arriving to any conclusion and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner the same could have been asked from her, if only on the ground of non annexing the certificate, candidature of the petitioner is rejected, same would be hyper-technical especially when admittedly the petitioner is duly registered with the Council and is in possession of the certificate issued by it. The very object of issuing the advertisement and inviting applications from the candidates is to select the meritorious and most deserving candidates and the technicalities should not come in the way of making fair selection. It is not the case of the PSC that the petitioner had submitted any incorrect information or suppressed anything but it is simply a case of non submission of the certificate. Expounding the legal position in somewhat similar matter in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, it has been held by the Apex Court as under:

Para 7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.

Para 8: This principle was explained and applied in Charles K. Skaria and Others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and Others, . The controversy here related to admission to a post graduate course in medicine. The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or sub-specialty and this benefit could be given only if the candidate''s success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the Selection committee before completion of selection in a an authentic or acceptable manner. The Prospectus provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and other documents should be attached with every application. Three such candidates were given admission who had not attached the certificate of having passed the diploma along with their application. Their admission to post graduate course was set aside by the High Court on the ground that their application, wherein they claimed the benefit or diploma, were liable to be rejected as the requisite certificates had not been attached. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the admission to the candidates had rightly been given as they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of paras 20 and 24 of the judgment, where this principle was highlighted are being reproduced below:

there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holder of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different form the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof sub-serves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but Still above-board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence.

24 It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic, approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise, This way of viewing problems dehumanizes the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and harassment in administration flows from over-emphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the Government and the selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark-lists from universities, why, even bail orders from Courts and Government orders from public offices.

This Court does not find any force in the argument of the PSC that if the petitioner is permitted to participate in the selection process, number of candidates whose application forms have been rejected by the PSC for one reason or the other, would approach this Court. In the return filed by the PSC no such details have been given and merely on the basis of such submission the merit of the candidate cannot be permitted to be ignored. Moreover, ultimately the selection of the petitioner would depend upon her performance in the open competition and if upon succeeding in the said competition she is found to be fit for selection, her merit cannot be ignored. This Court also finds no force in the argument of the respondents that if all the clauses of the advertisement are read together, they make it clear that the petitioner was required to file the certificate issued by the Council. Even if all the clauses are read together this does not make it mandatory for the candidate to annex or file the certificate issued by the Council In clause 10 of the advertisement, it is specifically mentioned as to what documents are required to be filed or annexed by the candidate along with the application form. It is however nowhere shown that the candidate was required to annex copy of the certificate issued by the Council.

This Court further finds no force in the argument of the counsel for the respondents that in clause 10-B the word "etc." means filing or annexing of certificate of the said council. Had it been the intention of the respondents, it would have been made clear that filing of such certificate of the Council is mandatory and mere mention of the word "etc." does not make the candidate to file such certificate.

This Court further finds no force in the argument of the counsel for the respondents that most of the candidates have annexed the copy of the said certificate issued by the Council and therefore the petitioner was also required to submit the same. Case of Lalit Jangde v. High Court of Chhattisgarh (W.P. 3084/2011) decided by this Court on 24.6.2011 is of no help to the respondent because in the said case special relaxation was claimed by the petitioner and in the light of the said relaxation it was held by this Court that filing of relevant documents was necessary. Dealing with almost an identical case in the matter of Shweta Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and another (WPS 5297/2010) and in the case of Ram Ashish Shrivastav and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, this Court has permitted the candidate to participate in the selection process though they had not filed the relevant document but were in possession of the same. Thus considering the aforesaid factual and legal position, the present petition is allowed. It is pointed out by the counsel for the parties that on account of interim order dated 19.11.2008, the petitioner has already been permitted to participate in the interview but the result of the same with respect to her was directed not to be declared. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner and go ahead with the selection process. So far as application filed by the intervener is concerned, no order is necessary thereon because if on declaration of the result, the petitioner is selected then perhaps the intervener will have no right. However, if the petitioner is not selected, automatically case of the intervener would be considered in accordance with law.

Order accordingly.