Mohan Hari Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

Petitioner was a candidate for the post of Fitter/Instructor. While considering his candidature, experience of the petitioner earned by him while

serving in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Bareilly which was for a period of six years was not considered. Had that experience been

considered, the petitioner would have got six additional marks i.e. one bonus mark for each completed year of teaching experience. According to the

petitioner, he secured 63.50 marks and the last selected candidate got 64.75 and had the six marks were added, his total marks would have been 69.50

and thereby he would have been amongst the list of selected candidates.

With this case, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being WPSS No. 526 of 2011, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court

on 02.8.2017 by passing the following order:

“8. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the opinion that experience acquired by a candidate, while serving in Government

ITI outside the State of Uttarakhand, cannot be ignored. Moreover, in the advertisement there is nothing to indicate that experience has to be acquired

only from Government ITI within Uttarakhand State. The respondents cannot take benefit of ambiguity in the advertisement.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served, if the Director, Training &

Employment is directed to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Director, Training & Employment, Uttarakhand to examine petitioner’s claim

for appointment, as Instructor (Fitter) and pass a reasoned and speaking order, within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this

order.â€​

Consequent to this, representation of the petitioner was considered but without taking into consideration the factors on which the directions had been

made, as contained in the aforesaid order dated 02.8.2017 of the learned Single Judge. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned

order dated 11.9.2017, on the ground that the selection pertained to the year 2010 and after a period of one year, the petitioner has no right for the

appointment, etc. There is no consideration as to why the bonus marks which ought to have been considered (as directed by a learned Single Judge of

this Court by his order dated 02.8.2017) were not awarded. The impugned order hence is an order which has been passed without any application of

mind, and is also arbitrary.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, however, a different stand has been taken, which is that the experience certificates given by

the petitioner seem to be contradictory! However, this is not the ground taken in the rejection order dated 11.9.2017.

The impugned order dated 11.9.2017 is totally arbitrary. Consequently, the writ petition is hereby allowed. Order dated 11.9.2017 is quashed and set

aside. The Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Uttarakhand (respondent no. 2) shall reconsider the matter, taking into consideration the

experience certificates of the petitioner which he has obtained while serving in the Government ITI, Bareilly. In case, the experience certificates are

of the discipline as sought by the department and are appropriate, the marks shall be awarded and appropriate orders shall be passed. It is made clear

that the bonus marks on the basis of the experience certificates cannot be denied on the ground that the experience has been earned outside the State

of Uttarakhand. Let a decision be taken in the matter within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.

It is made clear that this Court has not said anything as to other credentials of the petitioners.