Kumari Sandhya vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition in question has been filed by the Petitioner for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pass appropriate order with regard to appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Hindi Lecturer in respective category (SC Female).

Brief background of the case is that in the month of January-February 2009 an advertisement No. 5 of 2008-09 for recruitment of Lecturer in Government Inter College, under U.P. Special Subordinate Educational Service (Women Branch) was issued by Respondent. Petitioner has contended that she applied for the post of Hindi Lecturer as Schedule Caste candidate in women category. The Essential qualification for the post of Hindi Lecturer has been prescribed as "A postgraduate degree in Hindi and a bachelor degree in Arts with Sanskrit or certificate of Shastri examination of Sanskrit University Varanasi. Petitioner has further contended that she had qualification of High School (passed in year 1999), intermediate (passed in year 2001) B.A. (passed in year 2004) with subject namely Hindi Ancient History & Economy, M.A. (passed in the year 2006) with subject Hindi. Petitioner has further contended that she was perusing her B.A. Degree with single subject namely Sanskrit from the year of 2006, which she passed in the year 2009 and obtained her mark sheet on 02.07.2009. Petitioner while filling her form categorically mentioned that she is appearing with the single subject Sanskrit in B.A. Thereafter admit card to the Petitioner was sent for written examination which was to be held on 27.01.2010 with Roll No. 770363. Petitioner qualified the written examination and thereafter the Respondents sent a letter dated 03.12.2010 for interview which was to be held on 23.12.2010 and the Petitioner was required to be present alongwith all testimonials. It has further been contended that the interview was conducted on 23.12.2010 for the post of Hindi Lecturer and in which the Petitioner showed all her testimonial and also mentioned that she had passed B.A. with one subject i.e. Sanskrit in the year of 2009 and mark sheet for the same has been issued on 02.07.2009. Further it has been contended that at the time of interview the Respondents gave a letter dated 23.12.2010 to the Petitioner and asked her to produce the degree of B.A. with single subject Sanskrit later on. Further it has been contended by the Petitioner that when Petitioner went to take the degree of B.A. with single subject Sanskrit she was informed by the University that for a single subject Sanskrit no degree is given, and accordingly Petitioner informed the Commission. It has further been contended that on 03.01.2011 the result of the Petitioner was declared and the Petitioner was declared successful in her respective category. It has further been contended that thereafter almost 3 months have passed, but no joining to Petitioner was given thereafter Petitioner enquired from Respondent�Commission and it was informed that as she has passed her B.A. with the single subject Sanskrit after the cut of date of submission of the form therefore she is not eligible for the said post as she was not having required qualification at the time of advertisement. It has further been contended that Respondents are acting illegally and arbitrarily by denying the appointment to the Petitioner on the post of Hindi Lecturer through at the time of filing of form she categorically disclosed the information and also during the interview the same was informed before the interview committee but no objection of any kind was raised at that time. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case candidature of the Petitioner has been arbitrarily dealt with whereas each and every information has duly been furnished by her and thereafter she was permitted to undertake examination as well as permitted to undertake interview as such action of Respondents is bad and as such writ as prayed for be accorded.

Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel as well as Sri Puspendra Singh, Advocate contended that on the relevant date Petitioner was lacking requisite eligibility criteria as such this Court should not intervene in the matter.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case, that Petitioner applied for consideration of her candidature for the post of Hindi Lecturer as Schedule Caste category in woman category and essential qualification as prescribed was, a postgraduate degree in Hindi and a bachelor degree in Arts with Sanskrit or certificate of Shastri examination of Sanskrit University Varanasi. As per the term and condition of the advertisement closing date for receipt of the application form was 20th Feb. 2009. Petitioner filled up her application form and this is accepted position that by the last date fixed i.e. 20.02.2009 she was not fulfilling requisite eligibility criteria as provided for as she was not having to her credit Bachelor degree in Arts from Sanskrit. Petitioner has acquired requisite qualification from her own showing on 02.07.2009. Once this is factual scenario that Petitioner was not at all eligible on the last of filling up application form then by no stretch of imagination even if the Petitioner has wrongly undertaken the examination and thereafter interview she cannot be treated to be valid candidate, as such her candidature has been withheld on valid ground.

This Court in the case of Sangam Lal Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nil of 1990 decided on 8th March, 1990 and Rakesh Kumar Khare v. U.P.S.E.C. Civil Misc. Writ Petition 4291 of 1992, decided 26.03.1992 has taken the view that in case candidate has appeared in the examination then declaration of the result would relate back to the date of examination. Said judgment do not lay down good law and principle stated in said judgment has already been considered and disapproved and view has been that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled on the relevant date i.e. when there is no other date mentioned in the advertisement or the Rules, the last date of application is to be accepted as cut off date.

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Raman Kumar Pandey v. U.P.S.E.S.C reported in 1995 ESC (1) 74 has already answered the question, keeping in view that Hon''ble Apex Court has not approved the judgment of Sangam Lal Pandey (supra), in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana JT 1994 (1) 94 and in paragraph 12 finally concluded by observing the principle that declaration of result relates back to examination to which it relates is no more valid.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, has exhaustively dealt with the issue as to what would be the cut off date for determining eligibility criteria. The cut off date should be mentioned, either in Advertisement or in the Rules and in the absence of both, the last date mentioned in the advertisement, for filling up application form has to be considered as cut off date. Possession of requisite qualification is mandatory and same cannot be permitted to remain uncertain. If uncertainly is allowed to prevail employer would be flooded with application of ineligible candidates. In the said case by the last date mentioned in the advertisement, Appellant was not having requisite qualification as he was still perusing his M.D course on 30.10.1995, but he succeeded in appearing in interview and getting selected said appointment has been held to be void.

On the parameter of the provision quoted above once before last date of receiving application form i.e. 20.02.2009, the Petitioner was not at all fulfilling requisite eligibility criteria then merely because Petitioner has subsequently acquired eligibility criteria same will not make Petitioner eligible on the relevant date as relevant date in the present case is 20.02.2009. Petitioner was totally ineligible to be considered on the relevant date, consequently, present writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

No order as to cost.