Point of Law: Employment and Service matter - Posts of PGT (Informatics Practices) - Selection Process - Once Recruiting Agency has recommended name of candidate for particular post, appointing department in which candidates is to be offered appointment cannot reject candidature of selected candidate on any ground.

ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of letter dated 10th June, 2014 (Annexure P-9), whereby Joint Directorate of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, informed the petitioner, whose name stood recommended by Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Selection Service Board, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh ( for short ‘Board’) for appointment to the post of PGT (IP) that since his permanent address mentioned in the application form is outside of State of Himachal Pradesh, hence he may produce his Bona-fide Himachali Certificate on or before 20.06.2014, failing which, his candidature to the post of PGT (IP) shall be cancelled without any further notice, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following reliefs :-

“(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, whereby directing the respondents to quash and set-aside the impugned letter dated 10.6.2014, Annexure P-9, issued by the respondent No.2.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of PGT (Informatics Practices).”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that vide advertisement dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-5), Board advertized 767 posts of PGT (Informatics Practices) in the Department of Education, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner being eligible also applied against the post of PGT (IP), Code No.311 and he being fully qualified and eligible was called for interview by the Board. Vide press note issued by aforesaid Board, dated 24.12.2013, petitioner was declared to be successful in interview and his name was reflected in the merit list at Sr.No.287, as contained in Annexure P-8. Pursuant to aforesaid selection of the petitioner his name came to be recommended to the Department of the Education for offering appointment. However, Directorate of Higher Education of Himachal Pradesh vide impugned order dated 10th June, 2014, called upon the petitioner to submit Bona-fide Himachali Certificate, failing which, his candidature against the post in question shall be cancelled. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute interse parties that petitioner being fully eligible was permitted to participate in the interview by respondent No.3, pursuant to advertisement dated 13.12.2011 issued for appointment against 767 posts of PGI (IP) in the Department of Education. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 after having found petitioner fully eligible declared him successful and his name finds mentioned at Sr. No.287 of the merit list issued by respondent No.3. It is also not in dispute that name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of PGT (IP) was recommended by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, who instead of offering appointment to the petitioner against the post of PGT(IP), called upon him to furnish bona-fide Himachali certificate.

4. Precise grouse of the petitioner, as has been raised in the instant petition is that since there was no bar for the people hailing from other State to participate in selection process initiated by the respondents pursuant to advertisement dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-5) and there was no specific condition contained in the advertisement that only candidates having bona-fide Himachali certificate shall be eligible to participate in the interview, respondent-State could not have asked him to submit bona-fide Himachali certificate that too after his being selected in selection process.

5. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General representing the respondents while referring to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and