Sangeeta Joshi And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

Since the factual matrix of the above mentioned writ petitions and law governing the field is the same, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided together by a common judgment and order.

By means of the aforesaid writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the office memorandum dated 12.06.2019, whereby the claim of the petitioners to include their names as successful candidates for the post of Health Worker (Female)/ANM under Schedule Caste (SC) category and O.B.C. category has been rejected. Further the petitioners are seeking direction against the respondents to declare the petitioners as successful candidates and give appointment/joining to them on the post of Health Worker (Female)/ANM. Petitioners are also seeking direction against the respondents to give them seniority from the date when the similarly situated persons were appointed in the Department.

Brief facts of the case are that both the petitioners are Intermediate with Science Stream and after obtaining certificate course of Health Workers (Female)/ANM from Uttarakhand State Medical Faculty in January, 2012, they were registered as "Auxiliary Nurse Midwives, Health Workers (Female)" with Uttarakhand Nurses & Midwives, Health Workers (Female)" with Uttarakhand and Midwives Council on 13.05.2013. It is averred in the writ petition that on 15.03.2016, respondent no.2 inviting applications forms for 440 posts of Health Worker (Female)/ANM, including 163 posts for OBC Category and 170 posts for Scheduled Castes Category, vacant in various Government Hospitals of the State. In response of the above noted advertisement, the petitioners applied for the post of Health Worker (Female)/ANM in the prescribed format, in which the petitioners appeared under reserved category candidates. It is further contended that after scrutinizing all the applications received, the respondent no.2 declared the result and issued a list of 293 selected candidates including 153 candidates of OBC category and 101 candidates of Scheduled Caste Category on 8.03.2019. The names of the petitioners neither figured in the list of selected candidates nor in the list of provisionally selected candidates or in the list of those candidates whose candidature has been rejected. In the provisionally selected candidates list, the names of those candidates were included, whose documents were missing/lost/not attached with the application form, those candidates were directed to appear in the Directorate with original documents. Having comes to know this fact, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities by way of submitting representations with a request that their names may also be included in the list of 293 selected candidates as they have submitted all the required documents in prescribed format, but no action has been taken by the authorities.

Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing WPSS No. 877 of 2019, Km. Manju Aunsa Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and WPSS No. 878 of 2019 "Smt. Sangeeta Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others". A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide separate orders passed in both writ petitions on 15.04.2019 directed the respondent no.2 to decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioners submitted their separate representations on 27.04.2019 to the respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 rejected both the representations vide office memorandum dated 12.06.2019. Hence, these writ petitions.

In paragraph no.7 of the both writ petitions, the petitioners have specifically stated that after scrutinizing all the applications received, the respondent no.2 declared the result and issued a list of 293 selected candidates including 153 candidates of OBC category and 101 candidates of Schedule Casts Category on 08.03.2018, and in the said list, the names of the petitioners were neither mentioned as successful selected candidates nor were shown as rejected candidates.

Respondent no.2 has filed his counter affidavit in Writ Petitions Nos. 1673 of 2019 and 1675 of 2019. The averments made in paragraph no.7 of the said writ petitions have been replied in paragraph no.6 of counter affidavits, which is extracted below:

"That in reply to the contents of para nos. 5 to 7 of the writ petition, it is submitted that petitioner's certificates regarding her educational qualification as well as professional qualification i.e. photo copies of mark sheets or certificates were not annexed in support of mark sheets or certificates were not annexed in support of educational qualifications and experience for the said course. Hence, the name of the petitioner was not included in the select list.

It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that petitioners did not submit the applications form on prescribed format and also did not attach their educational qualification and experience certificate with the applications form, therefore, the case of the petitioners was not considered for appointment. Petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavits in respective writ petitions and rebutted the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2.

In the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners have submitted their application forms in the prescribed format strictly in accordance with the advertisement annexing the self attested copy of all the credentials as required. Besides this, in absence of any of the documents as required the name of the petitioners would have been placed in the list of provisionally selected candidates, or in the list of candidates whose candidature has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent no.2 without considering the fact that the petitioners submitted their applications form on prescribed format alongwith the required documents has rejected the representations of the petitioners. He would further submit that petitioners are legally entitled to be selected with successful candidates under reserved category for the post of Health Workers (Female)/ANM and are entitled to get the seniority from the date when the similarly situated persons appointed in the Department pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. He would further submit that the action of the respondent authorities in not including their names as successful candidates under reserved category is not only illegal but is also violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent no.2 declared the list of 293 successful candidates and also list of four candidates, whose candidature has been rejected, namely, Ms. Abli Rawat, Ms. Pradeepa Rani, Ms. Reshma and Ms. Prabha Panwar. Since, the names of the petitioners were not shown as successful candidates or in the list wherein the candidature of some of the candidates has been rejected. He would further submit that the petitioners have applied against the advertised post and submitted their application forms in prescribed format and also submitted their credentials in support of their respective applications. Copy of the application forms submitted by the petitioners are annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The petitioners have specifically pleaded in their writ petitions that the applications forms were submitted by them in prescribed format and self attested credentials were also enclosed with the forms. Perusal of the counter affidavit would reveal that the averments made in paragraph-7 to the writ petitions have not been denied by the respondents specifically, rather the same has been denied evasively. Since, the averments made in writ petition have not been denied specifically in the counter affidavit, the same shall be deemed to be admitted by the respondents. The respondents have issued the list of selected candidates, list of provisionally selected candidates and the list of candidates whose candidatures have been rejected, but the names of the petitioners did not find place in any of the list, which itself lead to the conclusion that the petitioner have not been placed anywhere. Thus, in these circumstances, It was incumbent upon the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in provisionally selected candidates list as the other candidates who did not produce their credentials and their names have been included in the provisionally selected candidates list.

Perusal of the order impugned would further reveal that the representation of the petitioners have been rejected by respondent no.2 without considering the fact that the petitioners submitted the applications form on prescribed format alongwith the required documents. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The same is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. The same is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. Respondent no.2/competent authority is directed to examine the application forms alongwith credentials of the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents/competent authority is further directed that if the documents/credentials of the petitioners are found correct and genuine, the respondents shall give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Health Worker (Female)/ANM in the Medical Department and thereafter shall decide their seniority in the Department as per their merit.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.