Raksha Uniyal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1580 of 2018 dated 14.6.2018. The appellant herein filed the Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents in terminating her services by proceedings dated 9.4.2018 on the ground that, when she had submitted her application for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer Class-III, she did not possess the prescribed qualification of being a Graduate in Agriculture Sciences from a recognized University.

The last date for submission of the application form was 15.4.2016 and the advertisement stipulated that only such candidates, who possessed the qualification of Graduation in Agriculture Sciences, were alone eligible to apply for appointment to the said post. Admittedly, the appellant had not obtained her graduation in Agriculture Sciences on that date; and it is more than three months after the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement, for submitting the application i.e. 15.4.2016, did she obtain a Bachelors degree in Agriculture Sciences on 17.7.2016.

The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that she had not suppressed relevant information; and since she had fairly stated, in her application form, that she was awaiting the result of her final year examination in B.Sc. Agriculture Sciences, the action of the respondents, in terminating her services seven months after she was appointed as Assistant Agriculture Officer, is illegal.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that on the cut-off date, i.e. on 15.4.2016, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the said post pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.2.2016; and it is only thereafter that it came to light that her graduation mark sheet and degree were subsequent in time to the last date of applying; consequently, her appointment was cancelled; the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed, to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, on the date on which she had submitted her application; and termination of her services, for having obtained the appointment wrongly, was in order.

While Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the appellant-writ petitioner was not at fault; and the fault was on the part of the respondents in processing her application and in appointing her to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, the fact remains that the petitioner was ineligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer since the advertisement stipulated that only such candidates who were graduates in Agriculture Sciences were eligible to apply, and to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer.

While the respondents are undoubtedly at fault in processing the appellant-writ petitioner's application, and in appointing her to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, that would not justify appointment of the petitioner to the said post, despite her not possessing the prescribed qualification, as another candidate, who was otherwise eligible to be considered for appointment to the said post, has been illegally denied the opportunity of being selected and to be appointed to the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer in view of the selection and appointment of an ineligible candidate i.e. the appellant-writ petitioner herein.

Even otherwise, interference in an intra-Court appeal would be justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal. Consequently, the Special Appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.