Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 893
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Varsha Gangta - Petitioner
Vs.
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and another - Respondents.
CWP No.: 2870 of 2019
Decided On : 06-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
The prerogative of prescribing the syllabus lies with the recruiting agency, and the court should not interfere unless malafides are alleged or the syllabus is beyond qualifications or out of context.
Headnote:
Syllabus - Recruitment Process - Recruitment and Promotion Rules - [Column No. 15 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules] - The court dismissed the petition challenging the syllabus prescribed by the respondent for the post of Scientific Officer, emphasizing that the prerogative of prescribing the syllabus lies with the recruiting agency, and the court should not interfere unless malafides are alleged or the syllabus is beyond qualifications or out of context. The court also highlighted that the syllabus was prescribed by a Committee of subject experts and was in line with the essential qualifications, and no injustice was done to any candidates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the syllabus prescribed for the post of Scientific Officer, alleging that it favored candidates from the Chemistry stream and discriminated against candidates from Environment Science and Microbiology backgrounds. The petitioner sought to quash the recruitment process due to unfair treatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claims were contrary to the record, as the syllabus was uploaded on the website in May 2019, and the petitioner's representation against the syllabus was belated. The court emphasized that the prerogative of prescribing the syllabus lies with the recruiting agency and that the syllabus was in line with the essential qualifications, and no injustice was done to any candidates.
Issues: The primary issue was the challenge to the syllabus prescribed for the post of Scientific Officer, alleging unfair treatment and discrimination against candidates from specific streams.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless malafides are alleged or the syllabus is beyond qualifications or out of context, it should not interfere with the prerogative of the recruiting agency in prescribing the syllabus. The court also emphasized that the syllabus was prescribed by a Committee of subject experts and was in line with the essential qualifications, and no injustice was done to any candidates.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the syllabus prescribed for the post of Scientific Officer, and the interim orders, if any, were vacated.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
?(i) That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondent to amend the syllabus by providing equal opportunities to all the three streams which are eligible for the post i.e., Scientific Officer in H.P. State Pollution Control Board under the Department of Environment Science and Technology, by providing equal marks for the written screening test for Chemistry, Environment Science and Microbiology, in the interest of law and justice.
(ii) Entire record pertaining to the case may very kindly be summoned from the respondent.
(iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may very kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.?
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are as under:- Vide Advertisement No. 3/2019, dated 21st February, 2019 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 1 invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up various posts in different Departments of Himachal Pradesh Government. This included the post of Scientific Officer, Class-I (Contract Basis) in Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board under the Department of Environment Science and Technology. As per Advertisement, the candidate was to possess requisite essential qualification prescribed for the post for which he/she intended to apply as on closing date, i.e., 13th March, 2019 for submission of Online Recruitment Applications on the Website of respondent No. 1. The number of posts of Scientific Officer, Class-1, which were advertised vide Advertisement (Annexure A-1) were four and these were all un-reserved posts. The posts were advertised in the Pay Band of Rs.10,300-34800/-+Rs.5400/- Grade Pay. The essential qualification for the post in issue was as under:
?(a) Essential Qualification: 1st Class M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry/Environmental Science/Micro-Biology with a Bachelor's Degree in Basic Science from a recognized university/institution as a regular student or Bachelor Degree in Chemical Engineering or Bio-Chemical Engineering.
(b) Desirable Qualification: Knowledge of customs/manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions, prevailing in Himachal Pradesh.? As per the petitioner, as she was eligible for the post in issue, she applied for the same. According to her, neither in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post in issue, which stand appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 nor in the Advertisement there was any mention with respect to the pattern and syllabus for the written screening test. In this background, the petitioner first made inquiries from the employer, but she was referred to respondent No. 1 and accordingly, she kept on making inquiries as to what would be the syllabus of the written screening test from respondent No. 1. According to her, right from the month of March, 2019 onwards, she was intimated by respondent No. 1 that they were consulting with Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and it is the employer, who would finalize the syllabus and thereafter, the same would be made known to the eligible candidates. However, as per the petitioner, no intimation with respect to the syllabus was given up to the month of June, 2019 and thereafter, she stopped making inquiries in this regard. According to her, respondent No. 1 uploaded the syllabus for the post in issue on its Website somewhere either in the end of the month of June, 2019 or in the month of July, 2019, which came to the notice of the petitioner in the month of August, 2019. After perusing the syllabus, which stands appended with the petition as Annexure P-3, she found that the screening test was to be of 100 marks, out of which, there were to be multiple choice questions of 80 marks, for which syllabus was given. Besides this, 10 questions were to be about General Knowled
