Muskurana vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the direction to the respondents to issue the admit card to her to enable her to participate in the main examination for “Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2021, which is scheduled to be held from 2nd to 5th August 2022.

2) The case of the petitioner is that she had offered her candidature for the said examination by submitting her online application. The respondents had exempted deposit of fee by the candidates on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, and so she did not have to deposit the fee for the preliminary examination. She undertook the preliminary examination and was declared successful in the said preliminary examination. On 26.04.2022, the respondent issued another advertisement calling upon the qualified candidates in the preliminary examination, to submit their online application forms.

3) The petitioner has placed on record the advertisement dated 31.12.2021, issued by the respondent. This advertisement clearly stated, in Clause 17, that the examination fee exemption was applicable in respect of examinations conducted upto 31.03.2022. The petitioner submitted her application for the main examination online, but did not deposit the fee even when the respondent issued the advertisement on 26.04.2022, calling upon the successful candidates in the preliminary examination to deposit their applications. It was clearly stated that for payment of examination fee for the main examination by the candidates provisionally declared successful in the preliminary examination, the link of online application would be open on the website from 27.04.2022. The petitioner, however, did not deposit the fee for the main examination.

4) The case of the petitioner is that the respondents never notified or alerted her that her application was deficient on account of non-deposit of fee. The respondents issued the rejection list in respect of other candidates whose documents were short, and they were granted an opportunity to make up the deficiency. However, similar opportunity was not granted to the petitioner. Since the petitioner’s name did not figure in the rejection list, the petitioner had no reason to assume that her candidature had been rejected or not entertained. Consequently, she had preferred this petition as the main examination is scheduled to be held from 02.08.2022, onwards.

5) Learned counsel for the respondent has appeared, on advance notice, and he has brought to our attention the Clause 17 of the notice dated 31.12.2021, as also the clause in the advertisement dated 26.04.2022, requiring the candidates to deposit the examination fee. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner did not deposit the examination fee, her application was not processed.

6) In our view, there is no merit in the petitioner’s grievance. The petitioner has only herself to blame. She should have followed the instructions and deposited the examination fee along with her application for the main examination. Not having done so, the respondents were justified in not even processing her application. That appear to be the reason why her name did not figure in the rejection / disqualification list which contains the names of those candidates whose documents were deficient and they were granted time to make up the deficiency. None of the candidates enlisted in the rejection list was one who had not even deposited the examination fee.

7) For the aforesaid reason, we find no merit in this writ petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.

Interim Relief Application (IA No. 01 of 2022) also stands disposed of.