Recruitment processes demand strict documentary compliance for eligibility verification like API scores; timely objections to tentative ineligibility lists mandatory; courts refrain from interfering after selection completion and appointments.

JUDGMENT :

1. By means of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(i) “To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification/ineligibility list dated 30.09.2024 issued by respondent no.1, in so far as it relatesto the petitioner (Sl. No. 8, Roll No. 514824);

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the natureof certiorari quashing the impugned tentative ineligibility list dated 03.06.2024 issued by respondent no.1, in so far as it relates to thepetitioner (Sl. No. 6, Roll No. 514824);

(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Commission to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics), Government Degree College, pursuant to the selection in question;

(iv) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that respondent no.1 issued an advertisement dated 04.12.2021 inviting applications for 455 posts of Assistant Professor in various Government Degree Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. Out of these, 36 posts were for Physics, of which 22 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. As per the advertisement, the selection process comprised short-listing on the basis of Academic Performance Indicator (API) score, followed by interview, and final selection was to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the interview. The petitioner applied online pursuant to the said advertisement and was declared successful in the short-listing result dated 13.04.2022, whereafter she was required to submit relevant documents by 04.05.2022, which she admittedly submitted. Thereafter, in June, 2024, respondent no.1 uploaded a tentative ineligibility list dated 03.06.2024, proposing rejection of certain candidates, including the petitioner. Subsequently, a final rejection list dated 30.09.2024 was published, declaring the petitioner ineligible. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a domicile of Uttarakhand, belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, holds a First Division M.Sc. (Physics) degree, is UGC-NET qualified, has also qualified CSIR-JRF, UTET-I and UTET-II, and has worked as Guest Faculty in Government Degree Colleges. It is contended that the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on a hyper- technical and flimsy ground, namely, that the marksheet of the Master’s degree did not explicitly mention total marks obtained and maximum marks, although the percentage and division were clearly reflected. It is further submitted that the tentative ineligibility list dated 03.06.2024 mentioned only roll numbers and not the names of candidates, and was neither properly published nor effectively communicated, thereby depriving the petitioner of a meaningful opportunity to submit objections. The petitioner further submits that during the relevant period she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, delivered a child on 15.09.2024, and thus could not become aware of the tentative ineligibility list.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that under Clause 4(1) read with Table 3(B) of the advertisement, API scores are strictly dependent on percentage of marks obtained. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted only the final year marksheet of M.Sc., without producing documents reflecting total marks obtained and maximum marks