2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, B.B. MANGALMURTI, JJ.
Dr. Anuj Sharma, son of Shri R.K.Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare and Ors - Respondent
L.P.A. No.582 of 2017
Decided on : 24-09-2018

Headnote:

Service Laws – Selection Process – Eligibility Criteria – Dispute in this appeal involves consideration of certain materials for giving weightage in a selection process for the post of Lecturer in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi in the subject of Periodontology and Oral Implantology. – The eligibility criteria for that post was specified in Advertisement – So far as the post of Lecturer is concerned, the eligibility criteria stipulated was MDS in concerned subject with three years teaching experience as Tutor/Senior Resident in concerned subject. – Writ petitioner questioned his selection before the learned First Court mainly on the ground that certain publications made by the Respondent No.4 in International Journals were published and weightage was given to such publications while considering the candidature of the said respondent. – Held, Clause 1 of the “Instruction for the Candidates” stipulated that the applications in prescribed proforma with Bio-Data in all respect, signed by the candidate, were to reach the office of the Institute on or before 30th November, 2015 till 5.00 PM. – It was also specified that after the due date and time i.e., 30th November, 2015 till 5.00 PM, applications or any other documents shall not be accepted. – In this case, the Interview Board has accepted documents generated subsequent to 30th November, 2015. – This was in breach of the norms set down by the selecting body themselves. – Secondly, in our view, in a selection process the selecting body can rely on only those materials which had been generated on the date of the publication of the advertisement or on or before the last date for filing the application form in the absence of any cut-off date stipulated. – A candidate, in absence of a cut-off date, has to be assessed on the basis of his qualification on the last date of filing of the application form and not thereafter. – Though the specified norm in this case stipulated cut-off date in respect of age and experience, it cannot lead to the inference that in respect of other factors to which weightage was to be given, the selecting body had unfettered discretion to extend time. – Court’s opinion on this point, of course, is subject to any other specific clause the selection body might stipulate in laying down the date stipulation. – Court do not find any such clause. – This being the position of law, Court is of the view that the selection body had erred in taking into cognizance the publications of the Respondent No.4 at the time of interview which were made subsequent to the date of filing of applications. – This was contrary to Clause 1 of the “Instruction for the Candidates” and also the general principle of law that in the absence of any specific cut-off date, the last date for filing application form would be the material date. – Court set aside the judgment of learned First Court. – Court direct the Institute to recast the score-sheets of the appellant and the Respondent No.4 as regards allocation of points in relation to weightage given to publications excluding from the zone of assessment any publication produced by the Respondent No.4 made after 30th November, 2015. – Court have not made any comment on the qualification of the appellant as the authorities themselves had passed him on that score. In the event there is any mistake, as suggested by Dr. Singh, it would be for the authorities to take steps in accordance with law. – Court is not immediately invalidating the selection of the Respondent No.4. – Court direct that if he has already been appointed, his appointment shall be subject to recasting of the respective score-sheets in the manner directed by court. – If after this exercise it is found that on computation of total points, the appellant has scored more than the Respondent No.4, the selection of respondent No.4 shall stand invalidated. – The appellant in such case, as the second best candidate on the basis of present evaluation shall be declared as successful candidate and all consequential steps shall be taken. – This exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the Institute within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. – Appeal Allowed