Manju Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned

Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission and Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State and, with their consent, the writ

petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been invoked seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection

order dated 20.02.2020; for a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to accept the requisite educational qualification certificates

filed with the representation dated 13.02.2020, in compliance of the letter dated 07.02.2020 issued by the third respondent; thereafter include her name

in the list of eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology); permit her to appear for interview on 24/25/26.02.2020; and, thereafter,

appoint her against the vacancy of Assistant Professor (Sociology) if she finds her name placed in the final merit list under the Scheduled Caste

category.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 04.08.2017, inviting applications from eligible candidates for

appointment to various posts of Assistant Professors in different subjects, the petitioner also submitted an application seeking reservation under the

Scheduled Caste category. Pursuant thereto, she appeared for the screening test held on 11.02.2018 and was found successful therein. Thereafter, a

notification was issued by the Public Service Commission on 06.08.2018 informing the candidates, who were found successful in the screening test,

that they should take a print out of their on-line application form, enclose therewith self-attested copies of the documents mentioned in the notification,

and submit the same to the Public Service Commission on or before 6 p.m. on 29.08.2018.

Clause 7 of the said notification dated 06.08.2018 makes it amply clear that failure to submit these documents on or before 29.08.2018 would result

in their being declared ineligible to participate in the interview; and no such request would be entertained thereafter. Notification dated 07.02.2020 was

issued thereafter assigning reasons for declaring candidates ineligible to appear in the interview.

With regards those applicants, who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology), the notification assigns reasons for disqualifying

each one of the eight candidates, who were successful in the screening test, from appearing for the interview. In so far as the petitioner is concerned,

the reasons recorded in the said notification are that, in terms of the advertisement dated 06.08.2018, the last date for submission of the downloaded

application form, and all documents in support of the claim made therein, was 29.08.2018; and since she had failed to submit these documents before

then, the petitioner was disqualified from appearing in the interview. The notification dated 7.02.2020 enables candidates, who were notified to have

been disqualified, to make a representation on or before 17.02.2020. They were directed to attach the documents in support of their claim along with

their representation. It was made clear that representations, received after 17.02.2020, would not be considered by the Commission.

The petitioner made a representation on 13.02.2020, enclosing self-attested copies of all documents along with the downloaded application form.

This representation of the petitioner was rejected by proceedings dated 20.02.2020 holding that she had not submitted her self-attested testimonials

before the prescribed cut off date of 29.08.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was pursuing her Ph.D. Course at Jawaharlal Nehru

University, New Delhi during the relevant period; she could not, therefore, submit her self-attested testimonials before the cut off date of 29.08.2018;

by notification dated 07.02.2020, another opportunity was given to candidates, who were held disqualified, to submit their documents; and since the

petitioner had submitted the required documents by 13.02.2020, long before the cut off date of 17.02.2020, her documents should have been accepted;

and she should have been permitted to appear in the interview.

On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, would submit that the petitioner’s

representation is dated 03.01.2019, and not 13.02.2020; it is only regarding the decision taken by the Public Service Commission to disqualify

candidates from appearing in the interview, were such disqualified candidates permitted to submit their representation; the petitioner, having failed to

submit her documents before the cut off date on 29.08.2018, was not entitled to submit her documents again pursuant to the notification dated

07.02.2020; and the action of the Public Service Commission, in rejecting her candidature, is justified.

As noted hereinabove, the notification dated 06.08.2018, whereby candidates, successful in the screening test, were directed to submit their self-

attested testimonials along with the downloaded application form, prescribes the cut-off date for its submission as 29.08.2018. The said notification

dated 06.08.2017 made it clear that, failure to submit the documents before the prescribed cut off date of 29.08.2018, would result in the

disqualification of candidates; and no request would be entertained for extension of time.

Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit her documents on or before 29.08.2018. Even on her own admission, she submitted these documents only

on 13.02.2020 pursuant to the notification dated 7.02.2020.

The notification dated 07.02.2020 is an order passed by the Public Service Commission assigning reasons why the candidates, referred to in the

said notification, were disqualified from appearing in the interview. The representation, which these candidates were permitted to make, was only with

respect to the reasons assigned by the Public Service Commission for rejecting their candidature. As the petitioner was held disqualified, for not

submitting her documents before the cut off date on 29.08.2018, the representation which she could have made was to inform the Commission, in case

she had submitted the documents on time, that she had, in fact, submitted such documents on time; and the Commission was in error in holding that

she had not submitted her documents before the cut off date of 29.08.2018. The notification dated 07.02.2020 does not grant the petitioner time to

submit these documents after the prescribed cutoff date of 29.08.2018.

In Yamini Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and another (order in Special Appeal No. 76 of 2010 dated 08.06.2010; and in Radha Mittal v.

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (order in Special Appeal No. 79 of 2010 dated 08.06.2010) a Division Bench of this High Court upheld the

action of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in refusing to permit correction of the application submitted by the candidate; and in refusing to

entertain any request, subsequently made, for correction of the particulars furnished in the application form.

We are satisfied, therefore, that the Public Service Commission was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature to appear for the

interview to the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology).

The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.