Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 65
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
S.K. MISHRA, R.C. KHULBE, JJ.
Vibhu D/o Dr. Bharat Bhushan Chauhan – Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 178 of 2020
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijay Negi.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.D. Kandpal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of technical grounds for rejection, the interpretation of advertisement provisions, and the spirit of the interim order in the interest of justice and competition.
Headnote:
Aspirant - Assistant Conservator of Forest - SLP (C) No. 29799/2019, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 552 of 2019 - The court discussed the provisions of the advertisement, the directions of the Apex Court, and the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The key legal provisions discussed include the requirement of depositing fees and documents, the interpretation of technical grounds for rejection, and the spirit of the interim order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, sought relief against the Commission's decision to deny her the chance to appear in the main examination due to late fee submission.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had a strong case in her favor, and the balance of convenience favored her provisional appearance in the main examination. The Court also considered the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and directed the Commission to declare the result of the recruitment process, treating the petitioner as a qualified candidate.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility to appear in the main examination, the interpretation of the advertisement provisions, and the impact of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's qualification in the preliminary examination, the technical grounds for rejection, and the spirit of the interim order, emphasizing the interest of justice and competition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent-Commission was directed to declare the result of the recruitment process, treating the petitioner as a qualified candidate to sit in the main examination and complete the process within a reasonable time.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. The petitioner in this case, an aspirant to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, has filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.03.2020 as being contrary to the directions of the Apex Court in Ms. Aakriti Bahuguna vs. State of Uttarakhand, SLP (C) No. 29799/2019 dated 17.12.2019.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to allow the petitioner to appear for the mains examination of the Assistant Conservator of Forest.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
2. While considering this matter, this Court on 08.03.2021, passed an interim order. But before reverting to the interim order, we take note of the fact that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, and in pursuance of the application, she was allowed to appear in the preliminary examination. Subsequently, she qualified the preliminary examination. As per the requirement of the advertisement, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the requisite fee and documents for the main examination by 01.02.2020.
3. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’ for brevity) issued two advertisements. The second advertisement is of 17.01.2020. This Court taking into consideration the second advertisement had passed on dated 08.03.2021, the following order:
7. A bare perusal of the advertisement dated 17.01.2020 clearly reveals that in Item-5, the last date for submission of the documents and the fees is given as 01.02.2020. However, Item -8 clearly stipulates that those candidates, who have failed to deposit their documents and the fees by 01.02.2020, would be given a grace period till 10.02.2020. Obviously, the advertisement dated 17.01.2020 supersedes the original advertisement dated 30.07.2019. Therefore, the Commission is unjustified in relying on the original advertisement dated 30.07.2019. Therefore, the petitioner has an extremely strong case in her favour.
8. No harm would be caused to the Commission if the petitioner were allowed to appear in the main Examination on a provisional basis. Thus, the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, in case she is denied the right to appear in the Main Examination, an irreparable loss would be caused to her. Therefore, this Court directs the respondent-Commission to permit the petitioner provisionally to appear in the main examination which is tentatively scheduled to be held on 13.03.2021. The result of the petitioner shall be declared only after seeking a prior permission of this Court.
4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination on depositing the fee late. Thereafter, on 15.02.2021, the result of the petitioner was filed in this Court in a sealed cover, and this Court records that the petitioner has passed the main examination as per the result produced by the respondent-Commission.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate directions may be given to the Commission to publish the result and proceed with the process of selection.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, on the other hand, relies upon the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 552 of 2019, Aakriti Bahuguna vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, decided on 06.12.2019, wherein this Court has held that the petitioner, having failed to appear in the main examination and having failed to pay the prescribed fees on time, cannot now contend that, for her failure to secure the information from the website of the respondent-Commission, she should now be permitted to appear in the main examination. In any event, the main examination has already been held, and the results have alrea
