The court upheld the disqualification of the petitioner for failing to submit required documents as per the advertisement, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with application requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Nani Tagia, J.

Heard Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Prachi Pallavi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. The petitioner has put to challenge the decision contained in Letter No. 145 dated 19.01.2023 by the Bihar State University Service Commission / Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (for short ‘Commission’), insofar as it relates to the petitioner in Serial No. 709, whereby the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Psychology) has been disqualified. Also put to challenge is the decision contained in Letter No. 173 dated 20.01.2023 issued by the Commission insofar as the Commission has refused to call the petitioner to attend the interview programme for the post of Assistant Professor.

3. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Professor Psychology pursuant to advertisement dated 21.09.2020 issued by the Commission by submitting online as well as offline applications. The petitioner contends that when it had come to the knowledge of the petitioner that her candidature has been rejected by the impugned information dated 19.01.2023 issued by the Commission that the petitioner’s candidature, who was declared provisionally eligible subject to submission of 1. UGC Regulation 2009 Certificate and Registration Certificate regarding Ph.D. as per the advertisement 2. certificates of B.A. and M.A. have been rejected for non-submission of UGC Regulation 2009 Certificate and Registration Certificate regarding Ph.D. as per the advertisement, the petitioner had duly submitted the requisite documents once again to the respondent-Commission. The manner in which the requisite documents of the petitioner was submitted by the petitioner, has been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition by the petitioner as under :

“12. That the petitioner, on getting knowledge of the fact that her application has not been considered for the want of certain documents, duly submitted the requisite documents once again to the respondent as demanded in the aforementioned notice.”

4. Elaborating on the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the requisite documents were demanded by the Commission, the petitioner had submitted the requisite documents demanded hand to hand in the office of the Commission.

5. The further contention of the petitioner is that though the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Assistant Professor Psychology has been disqualified / rejected, yet the Commission has allowed some of the candidates of the other departments to appear in the interview, who did not submit the requisite documents. The persons, who have been alleged to have allowed to participate in the interview by the Commission even without submission of the requisite documents, however, have not been made party respondent in the writ petition.

6. Insofar as not making the party respondent to the candidates, who have been allowed by the Commission to appear in the interview, who did not submit the requisite documents, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that they are not required to be made party as they belong to different department and they will not be affected by the order passed in the instant writ petition.

7. The respondent-Commission has contested the case by filing a counter affidavit, wherein it contends that the petitioner was made provisionally eligible subject to submission of UGC Regulation 2009 Certificate and Registration Certificate of Ph.D. as per the advertisement. However, the petitioner did not submit the UGC Regulation 2009 Certificate and Registration Certificate of Ph.D. and, therefore, the petitioner was disqualified and not called for the interview. The respondent-Commission in the counter affidavit further contends that the Commission had granted an opportunity to the petitioner to submit UGC Regulation 2009 Certificat