Meeta Ghosh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following reliefs:

"(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned objection raised by respondent no. 3 in the letter dated 27.02.2019 holding that the confidential report dated 12.01.2019 issued by the Uttarakhand Open University is not acceptable.

(ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (History) in C.N.I. Girls Inter College 51-C Rajpur Road Dehradun, District Dehradun being duly selected and recommended by the selection committee pursuant to selection process started vide Advertisement dated 4.1.2019 and interview held on 13.2.2019.

(iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award cost of the petition to the petitioners."

The respondent no. 4, which is a minority institution is being run and managed under the bylaws as framed therein in accordance with the rules as framed and governing the service conditions of the employees to be appointed in the institution of respondent no. 3. The fact, which emerges for consideration before this Court, is that admittedly the respondent no. 4 had issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 04.01.2019, by virtue of which the candidature of the probable candidates, who are eligible to participate in the selection process as against the post advertised both for teaching and non-teaching staff, they were invited to apply within three weeks from the date of issuance of the advertisement by extending his or her candidature as would be apparent from the clause-3 of the advertisement dated 04.01.2019.

In the present writ petition we are only concerned with as far as the selection process pertaining to the post of Lecturer (History), which finds place in S.No. 1 in the advertisement of 4.01.2019 is concerned. As per the advertisement dated 04.01.2019 the eligibility criteria for selection as against the one available post of Lecturer (History) was that the candidate has to be a post-graduate in History and should also have a B.Ed. certificate from a recognized university or equivalent training certificate to make his or her candidature eligible to be considered for selection as against the said post in the ensuing selection process.

It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the said advertisement she has extended her candidature to be considered for selection, but it is yet an admitted case of the petitioner that at the time when the petitioner applied, her application was not supported with the 2nd year marksheet of the post graduate qualification, which a candidate essentially required to possess at the time of applying, as it was an essential qualification for participating in the selection process. Rather alternatively in order to make herself eligible to participate in the selection process, she has procured the record from the Examiner Controller of the Uttarakhand Open University, Haldwani, on 12.02.2019, which is claimed by the petitioner to have reflected that the petitioner has obtained 313 marks out of the total 500 marks in the M.A. final year examination. It is this report, which was submitted by the petitioner before the Selection Committee and based on which the petitioner had appeared in the interview, which was held on 13.02.2019 and ultimately on the conclusion of the process of interview by the Selection Committee, it is contended that as out of the total 34 candidates, who applied only 24 candidates participatede in the selection, who have participated against the said post, petitioner's name was ultimately found to be recommended to be appointed on 13.02.2019 by the selection committee constituted for the said purpose.

The contention of the petitioner is that admittedly on the date when the advertisement was issued or on the last cut off date provided for applying under the advertisement or atleast on the date when the recommendation was made by the Selection Committee, i.e. on 13.02.2019 by that time she was not holding a marksheet of M.A.2 nd year, which admittedly as per records placed by the petitioner in present writ petition, it was issued to her for the first time on 12.03.2019. Meaning thereby, either on the date of advertisement, or on the last date of applying in pursuance of clause 3 of the advertisement dated 04.01.2019 and even as on the date of recommendation date, i.e. 13.02.2019, the petitioner was not a holder of a pass certificate of having qualified the post-graduate examination. Meaning thereby, at the time of selection or applying she was not holding a valid qualification to make her eligible.

This Court is of the view that in order to make a candidate eligible to participate in the selection process it would obviously entail an eligibility in relation to the educational qualification, which the candidate have to have on the date of the advertisement or at the most at the date when there was a last cut-off date provided for applying against the post. Even if this preposition could be extended it could be extended only upto the date when the candidates participates in the selection process, which in the instant case happens to be on 13.02.2019. Since till 13.02.2019 or at the time when the advertisement was issued the petitioner was not a post - graduate, which was an essential qualification under the advertisement dated 04.01.2019, merely because a recommendation has been made by the Selection Committee on 13.02.2019, will not make her eligible to be appointed in pursuance to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, particularly, when she lacked the basic advertised qualification as provided in the advertisement dated 4.01.2019 or on the date of selection, i.e. 13.02.2019, when the appointment letter was not issued to her she has approached before the Management and the Management too has in turn approached before the Chief Education Officer and ultimately, the Chief Education Officer has passed the impugned order on 28.02.2019, observing thereof that wherein in clause 1, it has been observed by the Chief Education Officer that the candidature of the petitioner ought not to have been considered, because as on the date of issuance of the advertisement she was not holding an eligible qualification of being the post-graduate in the subject concerned and thus the appointment letter could not be issued to the petitioner, merely based on the recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the Management. Even otherwise merely petitioner was recommended to be selected will create any right in favour of the petitioner to be appointed.

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court is of the view that the reason, which has been assigned by the Chief Education Officer for declining to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she was not eligible as on the date of advertisement, was absolutely just and proper for the reason being that if the theory of having acquired the qualification subsequent to the issuance of the advertisement or subsequent to the last date of applying or before date of selection process is accepted it would be too preposterous to permit such a candidate, who was not holding a valid recognized qualification as on the date of advertisement because in such an eventuality, if this is permitted it would be too hypothetical to permit the candidate to participate in the selection process because any probable candidate, who has applied or appeared in the post-graduation examination that in itself will not entitle him or her or make his or her eligible to participate in the selection until and unless she holds a certificate of minimum qualification required for participation of the selection on the date of selection atleast. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the writ petition.

After conclusion of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested the Court to record the findings in relation to the recommendation, which was made by the Management to the Chief Education Officer where in clause 1 the following observation was made by the manager of the Committee of Management of respondent no. 4. It was to the effect that the defect or the discrepancy of the candidature of the petitioner due to non-supplying of the marksheet of the second year, the same has been presented by the petitioner and hence, the said discrepancy stands eradicated. This argument is absolutely untenable for the reason according to his own document, which has been placed on record, the petitioner was supplied with the marksheet of the second year for the first time only on 12.03.2019. Hence, the finding, which has been observed in the letter/communication dated 28.02.2019 by the Management to the Chief Education Officer will yet again not create any right in favour of the petitioner to be appointed based upon the recommendations, which was made by the Selection Committee, constituted by the Management, as it has already been held she was not qualified as on the date of advertisement. Hence, the recommendation of 28.02.2019, which is prior in time, cannot be foundationed as to be the basis for issuance of the letter of appointment.

Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.