Shiv Raj Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Mr. Narain Dutt, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Anil Bisht, the learned brief holder for the respondent no. 1. On 20th June 2010, an advertisement was published by the Director, Employment & Training, Uttarakhand inviting applications for the post of Vocational Instructors in different trades in the Government Industrial Training Institute. Prior to this advertisement, an advertisement No. 1 of 2009 dated 20.02.2009 was also issued in which the petitioner had applied, but, for reasons best known to the respondents, the selection process pursuant to the advertisement of 2009 was cancelled. In the advertisement of 2010, it was mentioned that the age limit of the candidate would be 21 to 35 years as on 01.07.2010. It was also stipulated that the candidates, who had earlier applied in the previous advertisement and where the selection process had started but was cancelled subsequently, would be given an age relaxation of 6 years provided the evidence of applying pursuant to the previous advertisement was furnished by the candidate.

Based on the advertisement of 2010, the petitioner applied and appeared in the written test and become successful. The respondents issued a letter dated 11.08.2011 informing the petitioner that he has been successful and had been appointed on the post of Welder and directed the petitioner to submit the necessary documents.

By a letter dated 05.09.2011, the Joint Director informed the petitioner that he had not furnished the C.T.I. certificate and that he had become overage as his date of birth was 01st January, 1970. The Joint Director intimated the petitioner that if there is any mistake in the application, he may correct the mistake by submitting necessary proof within one month. According to the petitioner, he had submitted the requisite proof on 15.09.2011. Since his case was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Welder.

The petitioner contends that he had applied in the year 2009 and, consequently, as per the terms for relaxing the age, the petitioner became eligible to apply in the advertisement of 2010.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit indicating that pursuant to the letter dated 05.09.2011, the requisite deficiencies were not cleared, namely, the C.T.I. certificate was not submitted, nor the documents relating to age relaxation was furnished by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner''s case for appointment could not be considered.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he had submitted the requisite documents on 15th September, 2011 and an endorsement was made by the relevant clerk as is clear from Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

Further arguments were made by the respondents that the petitioner in any case was not eligible as the petitioner had only applied pursuant to the advertisement of 2009, but, since no selection process had been initiated for the post advertised in the year 2009, such candidates could not be considered, whereas the respondents have only considered the candidates, who had applied in the year 2005 & 2006.

During the course of the arguments, the court had placed a query to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether there is any vacancy pursuant to the advertisement of 2010 and, in response, the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that some vacancies are still existing.

In the light of the aforesaid, the court having perused the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement of 2010 finds that a candidate, who had earlier applied in the earlier advertisement, was eligible to be considered and would be given the relaxation of age, if required. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that they were only considering such applications where the selection process had been initiated is erroneous. The court is of the opinion that once the advertisement is issued, the selection process starts automatically and it is futile to suggest that the respondents had not initiated the selection process pursuant to the advertisement. On one hand, the petitioner contends that he had submitted the requisite documents indicating that he had applied in the year 2009. On the other hand, the respondents contend that no such document was received. Necessary proof in this regard has been annexed in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit. In the light of the fact that certain vacancies are still existing coupled with the fact that the petitioner has stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that number of persons who were overage have been given the benefit of age relaxation and have also been given an appointment, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the Director, Training & Employment, Haldwani, District Nainital respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner''s application and if the respondents finds that the petitioner had applied for selection pursuant to the advertisement of 2009, the respondents would give the necessary age relaxation to the petitioner. In the event the petitioner gets the benefit of the age relaxation and comes within the norms of the age limit, the appointment letter would be issued. Such exercise shall be carried out within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.