AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
The controversy involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass. Vide Annexure PÂ3, applications were invited by respondent No. 1 for filling
up the posts of Radiographer in the Health and Family Welfare Department, 154 in number, on contract basis. In terms of the Advertisement, online
applications were to be submitted between 16.09.2017 to 15.10.2017 and the eligibility of the candidates in respect of essential qualifications and
experience was to be seen as on 15.10.2017. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 informs the Court that this date was extended up to 31.10.2017,
which fact is not in dispute. The eligibility criteria contained in the Advertisement for appointment to the posts of Radiographer, inter alia, provided that
the candidate should be 10+2 in Science from a recognized Board of School Education/University and Diploma in Radiology from an Institution
recognized by the Central/H.P. Government. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 1, inter alia, on the ground that he
was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria contained in the Advertisement as on the last date of consideration of eligibility of the candidate, because 10+2
certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was dated 05.12.2017, i.e., a date post the last date on which the eligibility of the candidate was to be
ascertained.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents appended with the pleadings.
Annexure PÂ4 is the copy of 10+2 certificate of the petitioner, perusal of which demonstrates that the same was issued by the National Institute of
Open Schooling on 05.12.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certificate so issued to the petitioner was on account of his
reÂappearing in 10+2 examination. On a pointed query which was put to learned counsel for the petitioner by the Court, he has fairly stated that it is
not as if earlier the petitioner had successfully passed 10+2 examination and he reÂappeared in the subsequent examination for improvement of
marks. This means that earlier the petitioner had failed in 10+2 examination and he only passed the same in terms of the certificate which stood issued
in his favour on 05.12.2017. That being the case, this Court finds no illegality in the act of the respondent No. 1 rejecting the candidature of the
petitioner, because as admittedly the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification as on 15.10.2017 extended up to 31.10.2017, therefore, in
these circumstances, the respondent No. 1 had no option but to reject the candidature of the petitioner.
In view of the observations made hereinabove, this petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.