Parul Gairola vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others

Heard Shri B.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.S. Bist, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.D. Kandpal, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

The petitioner contends that she was given appointment on a contract basis on the post of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) and, based on such appointment, the petitioner was working in a remote area at Government Allopathic Hospital Sumadi, Block-Khirsu, Pauri Garhwal since 31st August, 2009. These posts were subsequently advertised on 25th August, 2010 by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. On the basis of this advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic). In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it has been stated that at the time of the submission of the application, the petitioner had submitted the requisite fees and all necessary documents which were required to be submitted alongwith the application. Annexure-5 to writ petition indicates the documents so annexed. One of the documents, which was required to be submitted was the registration certificate to indicate that the applicant was registered with the Indian Medical Council of Uttarakhand. It is alleged that when the petitioner did not receive any call letter, she made an inquiry in the month of July, 2011 and came to know that her application has been rejected on the ground of non-submission of the registration certificate. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed in September, 2011 praying that the respondent No.1 be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic).

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Commission stating that the relevant document, namely, registration certificate was not filed on account of which the petitioner''s application was rejected and the same was displayed in the website of the Commission. By way of abundant precaution, the Commission also issued an advertisement in the newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" published in Dehradun on 15th June, 2011 indicating therein that those candidates whose application have been rejected on account on non-supply of documentary proof, may rectify the defect and file the document by 27th June, 2011, failing which, their application would no longer be considered. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner did not rectify the defect nor filed the registration certificate, her application was rejected and the petitioner was not called for the interview which was completed in the 1st week of September, 2011.

By an order dated 9th September, 2011, the Public Service Commission was directed to produce the original application of the petitioner. The original application form has been produced by the Shri B.D. Kandpal, the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission. A perusal of the original application form indicates that the petitioner had not annexed the registration certificate. Since this was an essential document, the application of the petitioner was validly rejected by the Commission.

The Court further finds that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and has wrongly stated in the writ petition that she had submitted all the relevant documents. Further, the rejection of the petitioner''s application was displayed on the website which has not been disputed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when further opportunity was provided by the Commission as per the advertisement dated 15th June, 2011, the same could not be known to the petitioner since the said newspaper was not circulated in the area where she was working. In our opinion, such publication of the advertisement could not be made a criteria to allow the petitioner a second innings. It has already come on record that the interview has already been completed by the Commission prior to the filing of the writ petition. At the same time the fact remains that the rejection of the petitioner''s application was displayed on the website which has not been disputed by the petitioner.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that equity is not in her favour and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The writ petition is dismissed.