Pradeep Kumar vs Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board And Ors

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents on 17.7.2018 applied for the posts of Jr. T­Mate, Jr. Helper(PH) E and Jr. Helper (S/Stn) in the respondents­Board.

As per clause 4 of the advertisement, relating to mode of selection, maximum 60 marks were reserved for the marks obtained in Matric to be awarded on prorata basis, 25 marks for technical qualification and 15 marks under various heads, like candidates belonging to notified Backward Area or Panchayat, landless family, non­employment etc., whereas under sub­clause 6 of clause 4, 2.5 marks were to be awarded to candidates belonging to BPL family having family annual income (from all sources) to be below Rs. 40,000/­ and the same reads as under:­

S. No

Process

Marks Assigned

Name of competent authorities to issue the certificate.

6

BPL family having family annual income (From all sources) below Rs.40,000/­ or as prescribed by the Govt. from time to time.

2.5(two & half)

Concerned BDO by taking the authenticated entries in the "Pariwar Register" as the basis of such certificate or concerned Panchayat Secretary/Sahayak and countersigned by concerned Gram Panchayat Pradhan

3 It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to produce the requisite BPL certificate reflecting therein family annual income (from all sources) below Rs.40,000/­ and aggrieved thereby has filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:­

"i). That this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents board to grant 2.5 marks to the present applicant as prescribed in the advertisement itself and consider the case of the present applicant in the category in which he had already applied for i.e. General/BPL/Antodaya Category.

ii). That the respondents board may kindly be directed that the applicant be declared as successful candidate amongst the General BPL/Antodaya category by awarding him marks of BPL/Antodaya category marks i.e. 2.5 marks."

It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents could not have denied grant of 2.5 marks to the petitioner solely because the BPL certificate submitted by him did not mention the family annul income (from all sources) to be less than Rs.40,000/­, on the other hand, learned Advocate General would argue that the terms and conditions of the advertisement had to be construed strictly and cannot be diluted even if they cause extreme hardship.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also the ground the material placed on record.

At the outset, it needs to be observed that the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure, which needs to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved in the relevant Rules and/or in advertisement.

Even where power of relaxation is or is not provided in the relevant Rules, it must be mentioned in the advertisement. Such power, if exercised, should be given due publicity to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to relaxation are afforded equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication is contrary to mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(Refer: Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and ors, (2011) 12 SCC 85)

Equally, settled is the proposition that the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement are binding on all and have to be applied uniformly.

An advertisement published calling for applications constitute a representation to the public and the authorities issuing it is bound by such representation and, therefore, cannot act contrary to it.

What in substance the petitioner wants is a direction to the respondents to whittle down or relax the condition regarding submission of BPL certificate relating to family annual income (from all sources) to be less than Rs.40,000/­, which in view of clear stipulation contained in the advertisement is not permissible.

The respondents in this case were holding exam at a large scale, wherein 799 posts of various categories were being sought to be filled­in, therefore, when an authority holds a public exam on such a large scale, candidates must be clearly aware of the fact that it is not open for them to decide as to when the documents should be submitted. These conditions are mandatory and if these are not read to be mandatory, then the entire process of holding exam would stand dislocated.

The petitioner was required to submit income certificate in a manner as was sought for by the respondents and this cannot be left to uncertainty more so at the individual discretion of the candidates.

The submission of documents along with application form is not a mere ministerial act nor does it constitute a mere confirmation of the application. The candidates, who submit application(s) are required to submit full documentary evidence, which evinces their eligibility and satisfies the required conditions.

It is only on scrutinizing the application and the documents that the respondents could have determined whether the candidates fulfill the required conditions or not. This process otherwise cannot be left in a perpetual state of indecision or uncertainty.

Lastly and more importantly, the petitioner is an educated person and it would be construed that he had read each and every conditions of the advertisement and had understood the same and, therefore, the instant petition is nothing, but an afterthought.

In addition to aforesaid, we find that the respondents have been cautious in referring the matter to the expert committee constituted by them for the purpose of rechecking the application form as per request of the petitioner. The expert committee has also rejected the case of the petitioner for having failed to submit BPL certificate reflecting therein family annual income (from all sources) to be below Rs.40,000/­. This decision has not been questioned and rightly so by the petitioner as admittedly, he had not submitted the necessary certificate.

In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.