Rajmohan Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of the instant writ petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

"I. Issue A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned list dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent no.3 so far as it relates to the petitioners.

II. a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.3 to permit the petitioners to participate in the Main Examination for the post of Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.10.2020 and 03.09.2021 passed by respondent no.3 scheduled to be held from 07.10.2021 to 10.10.2021 and further permit the petitioners to deposit the Main Examination fee.

III. Issue any other order or direction, which is deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioners.

IV. Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners."

It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to an advertisement, issued by the Uttarakhand State Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission), they applied for Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education Service, Lecturer Group 'C'. Both the petitioners qualified the preliminary examination. The Commission issued advertisement for main examination, requiring successful candidates to deposit fee for main examination between 01.08.2021 and 21.08.2021.

It is the case of the petitioners that they belongs to remote hilly area in District Uttarkashi. Due to non-availability of transport, they could not deposit the fee for main examination on or before the date fixed. They made representations to the Commission, but they have not been permitted to deposit the fee for main examination. A list has already been published by the Commission of the candidates, who did not deposit the fee for main examination.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners belong to remote area of District Uttarkashi, where there is less facility for internet and due to unavailability of transportation, they could not deposit the fee for main examination in time. They made representations, but the Commission did not permit them to deposit the fee and published a list of candidates, who did not deposit fee on time, which includes the names of the petitioners.

Learned counsel also submits that, in fact, the date for main examination has also been postponed by the Commission and instead of first week of October, 2021, now they have scheduled it to be held in the last week of October, 2021. Therefore, it is submitted that respondent no.3, the Commission may be directed to allow the petitioners to deposit the fee for main examination and allow them to participate in the main examination.

In fact, this case was earlier taken up on 17.09.2021, on that date, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 sought time to get instructions in the matter, Today the learned counsel representing respondent no.3, the Commission submit that, in fact, notification with regard to deposition of fee was published in the newspapers having wide circulation in the area and it was also uploaded to the website of the Commission. Pursuant to it, the candidates have already deposited the fee, except the petitioners and others similarly situated persons.

Hardship of an individual is to be balanced with the interest of a large number of candidates. Petitioners' claim that they could not deposit the fee on time due to non-availability of internet and transportation facilities. Petitioners have filed e-mail dated 27.08.2021, which is Annexure No.6 to the writ petition and the reasons for non-deposition of fee on time has been given as hereunder:-

"• The paths and roads got damaged in my village Rekcha, post-Phitadi Mori in Uttarkashi due to heavy rainfall and natural disasters, so could not reach the network area before the mentioned dates.

• I have given the information details to the UPSC in writing in advance on 25 Aug 2021 before this mail.

• It is my last chance to attempt this exam due to my age limit."

The Court during the course of hearing, wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to which representation was made by petitioner no.1 on 25.08.2021, which is referred to in the e-mail dated 27.08.2021?

To it, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court a copy of communication dated 25.08.2021, which has not recorded any reason, as to why the fee could not be deposited. A simple statement is given that the petitioner no.1, Rajmohan Singh could not deposit the fee till 21.08.2021.

It is not a case that for the first time respondent no.3 was transacting its business for the instant recruitment online. In para 3 of the writ petition, petitioners have written that they participated in the advertisement through online, the application was online. Earlier also the fee was deposited by the petitioners online. It was the petitioners to be a little more vigilant to ensure that they are not disconnected with the process under any of the circumstances. If the petitioners could not deposit the fee on time, it cannot be said that now the Court should assess the reasons, as to why they could not deposit the fee online. It is question of public examination, last date at each stage has much significance in such cases. Needless to say, intervention of the Court in the matter of public examination shall be made only when there are compelling reasons to do so. Instant is not such a case.

This Court is of the view that it is not a case, in which, any of the petitioners' legal rights have been infringed or violated, which may be enforced in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed in limine.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.