Meeta Ghosh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application seeking condonation of delay of 142 days in preferring the appeal is not opposed by Sri K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate

General and the delay is, therefore, condoned. The application seeking condonation of delay stands allowed.

This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1940 of 2019 dated 19.08.2019.

An advertisement was issued on 04.01.2019 inviting applications for several posts, including the post of Assistant Lecturer (History). In terms of the

said advertisement, the minimum educational qualification required for being considered for appointment to the said post was a post-graduation in

History from a reputed University and a B.Ed degree also from a reputed University.

While the appellant-writ petitioner, no doubt, obtained her B.Ed degree in the year 2014 long before the advertisement was issued on 04.01.2019,

she submitted her marks-sheet, of having passed M.A. in History, only on 12.03.2019 nearly a month after the selection process was completed on

interviews being held on 13.02.2019.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge opined that the appellant-writ petitioner should have possessed the minimum stipulated

qualification either on the date of advertisement, or at least on the date of interview; and, since the mark-sheet issued to her was published on

12.03.2019 nearly a month after the interview was held on 13.02.2019, she did not possess the minimum eligibility to participate in the selection

process, much less to be considered and appointed to the post of Assistant Lecturer (History).

Sri D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the qualification stipulated in the advertisement is either M.A.

in History or B.Ed, and not both; even otherwise, since the appellant-writ petitioner had submitted a representation to the authorities, the learned Single

Judge had erred in examining the matter on merits; and he should have merely issued a direction to the respondents to consider the appellant-writ

petitioner’s representation.

We have gone through the advertisement and are satisfied that the minimum qualification stipulated therein is both M.A. in History and B.Ed, and

not either one of them.

With regards the contention that the appellant-writ petitioner’s representation ought to have been directed to be considered, it is necessary to

note what the appellant-writ petitioner had sought in the writ petition. In the said writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to

quash the objections raised by the third respondent dated 27.02.2019 holding that the confidential report issued by the Uttarakhand Open University

dated 12.01.2019 was not acceptable; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner in the post of

Lecturer (History) in the CNI Girls Inter College, 51-C Rajpur Road, Dehradun as being duly selected and recommended by the Select Committee

pursuant to the selection process started vide advertisement dated 04.01.2019, and the interviews held on 13.02.2019.

Since the appellant-writ petitioner had sought a mandamus that she be appointed, the learned Single Judge had necessarily to examine whether the

appellant-writ petitioner fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria for selection and appointment to the said post, and whether the respondents were

justified in rejecting her candidature.

Interference in an intra-Court appeal is justified only when the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the

said order. The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.