State Of Uttarakhand & Others vs Anil Kumar

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This special appeal has been filed by the State Government against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No. 2244 of 2016 (S/S) whereby the writ petition was allowed, order dated 30.09.2016 passed by Additional Director, SCERT, Uttarakhand

was quashed and the respondents were directed to appoint the appellant to the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) under OBC category.

Appellant who fulfilled conditions of eligibility for the post of Primary School Teacher, responded to an advertisement dated 17.02.2016 issued by

Director, Primary Education. Appellant participated in the selection process. Despite scoring sufficiently high marks, his name did not figure in the list

of successful candidates, therefore, he made representations. After several representations/reminders the Additional Director SCERT passed an order

on 30.09.2016 whereby petitioner was informed that appellant was not selected due to following reasons:

(i) B.Ed. degree submitted by the appellant was after completion of selection process i.e. 14.03.2016.

(ii) With his application, appellant had submitted only B.Ed. mark-sheet and not the B.Ed. degree.

Thus aggrieved, appellant filed a writ petition seeking the following relief:-

“ (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.09.2016 whereby the petitioner’s selection has been

rejected.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner selected as per his merit on post of

Assistant Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement dated 17.02.2016 and application dated 23.02.2016.â€​

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Director SCERT and the principal defence taken was that appellant submitted application without

enclosing his B.Ed. degree. It was further stated that B.Ed. mark-sheet enclosed by the appellant was of 2009 but in his application, he had mentioned

that he passed B.Ed. examination in the year 2005-2006.

The mark-sheet for B.Ed. examination is on record as annexure-6 to the writ petition. A careful perusal of the same indicates that appellant studied

B.Ed. during academic session 2005-2006. The B.Ed. degree of the appellant is also enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure-6 and it also indicates

that appellant appeared in B.Ed. examination in the year 2006. It is not the case of the authorities that the B.Ed. degree possessed by the appellant is

not recognized or invalid and their only contention is that it was not obtained during Academic Session 2005-2006. The B.Ed. mark-sheet as well as

the B.Ed. degree clearly indicate that respondent pursued B.Ed. course during 2005-06, therefore, the first reason assigned for rejecting his

candidature cannot be sustained.

The second reason assigned for rejecting respondent’s candidature is also unsustainable in view of the condition contained in para 8 (Gha) of

the advertisement which provides that a candidate should submit copy of the B.Ed.mark-sheet/B.Ed. degree with the application form. This indicates

that submission of either mark-sheet or Degree of B.Ed Exam is sufficient. Since B.Ed. degree was issued to the appellant by the concerned

University after submission of the application therefore, he submitted only B.Ed. mark-sheet. In view of the condition contained in para 8 (Gha) of the

advertisement, appellant’s candidature could not have been rejected on the ground that he did not submit B.Ed. degree with his application.

We therefore, concur with the view taken by learned Single Judge. When the advertisement permits candidates to submit either B.Ed. mark-sheet

or B.Ed. degree, then petitioner’s candidature cannot be rejected only on the ground that he submitted only B.Ed. Marksheet. Thus, there was no

justification for rejecting appellant’s application for non submission of B.Ed. degree. It is a matter of common knowledge that in some Universities,

considerable delay is caused in issuing degree certificate although mark-sheet is issued soon after declaration of the result. Therefore, a student

cannot be made to suffer on account of the delay on the part of the University in issuing degree certificate. Since the appellants have not disputed

validity of the B.Ed. qualification possessed by the respondent, as such, rejection of his candidature by the appellants was clearly unjustified.

For the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge. The special appeal is liable to be

dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.