Dismissed

Amita Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022WRIA/266/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her exclusion from an interview for Lecturer B.Ed. post, claiming she qualified but the Commission violated procedures by not scrutinizing her application early. Court held submission of offline forms and documents was mandatory; lack of proof of submission rendered her ineligible despite provisional appearance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner's candidature remained provisional and she failed to establish compliance with mandatory Advertisement conditions.

Amita Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 266 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Amita Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Seemant Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Present petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') to interview the petitioner for selection on the post of Lecturer B.Ed. under Advertisement No. 01/2017-2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Advertisement'). Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment as a consequence of her selection.

¶7

Upon the petition being entertained, by interim order dated 11.1.2021, petitioner was allowed to provisionally participate in the interview. It is a fact, petitioner participated in that interview. However, her result has yet not been declared.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner held eligibility qualification including National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the University Grants Commission. Consequently, she applied for appointment under the Advertisement by filing her application form through online mode. In column for essential qualification details, under clause 4 the petitioner clearly filled her affirmative response indicating she held the above qualification. Then reference has also been made to the

¶9

certificate issued by the University Grants Commission dated 14.12.2012 disclosing that the petitioner had qualified NET on 18.9.2012.

¶10

First, relying on the U.P. Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business)Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Procedure Rules') and specifically relying on Rule 30(2) read with Rule 31(1), (3) and (4), it has been submitted, the Commission has violated the Procedure Rules. In the first place, the Commission was obligated to have scrutinized the application form submitted by her before allowing her to appear in the written examination.

¶11

Second, reference has been made to the special instructions contained in the advertisement itself, which reads as below:

¶12

"After submitting the online application, the candidates will have to send hard copy of their online application alongwith the photo copies of all academic required documents in support of their claims as made in online applications upto 01.12.2017 till 6 O'clock through registered/speed post or personally in the office of the commission. The candidates are suggested to send the hard copy of online applications alongwith all enclosures immediately after online submission of applications to avoid unnecessary delay and any other undesirable situation. For this purpose the candidates are advised to download address slip from Commission's website and to paste it on the envelope containing documents. In absence of required relevant documents/records, the claims made by the candidates shall not be tenable and relevant documents/records received after due date in the office of the Commission will not be accepted."

¶13

In view of the above, strong reliance has been placed on the contents of paragraph-6 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated as below:-

¶14

"6.That prior to appearing in the written examination, all the candidates having applied for selection on the post of Lecturer B.Ed. including the petitioner were required to submit the copy of the online application form appending therewith all the copies of the educational testimonials including the certificate of National Eligibility Test for Lectureship, as such the petitioner submitted all copies of all her educational testimonials including the certificate of National Eligibility Test for Lectureship along with the copy of the online application form before the Commission prior to the last date of submission i.e., 01.12.2017."

¶15

Thus, it has been submitted, petitioner held the essential qualification and that she had duly disclosed that fact in the

¶16

online application form submitted by her and submitted proof of such qualifications alongwith the offline application also submitted by her, within time i.e. upto 01.12.2017.

¶17

Third, it has been submitted the candidate had to be communicated the rejection of his candidature, by the Commission. Since no such communication was ever made to the petitioner, her candidature was always found to be valid. Thus, she has been wrongly deprived of the opportunity of interview. Consequently, petitioner claims to have been completely wronged upon being prevented from participating in the interview though she had qualified the written examination. In any case since the petitioner has now been interviewed under interim orders of this Court, it has been prayed that her result may be declared and consequential relief may be allowed to arise to her.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Commission would submit, petitioner had failed to comply with the essential/mandatory condition of Advertisement inasmuch as she never submitted her offline application form. She never filed with the Commission physical copies of the eligibility earned by her, as was necessary under the eligibility conditions published in the Advertisement and as has have also been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that, learned counsel for the Commission has specifically referred to the contents of paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been asserted as below:-

¶19

" 8.That the contents of paragraph no.6 and 7 of the writ petition are incorrect, misconceived and are specifically denied and in reply, it is submitted that though petitioner might have obtained the certificate of National Eligibility Test for lectureship on 14.12.2012 but, the petitioner never submitted the same along with the offline application before the last date, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be called for the interview and her candidature was cancelled on this account alone."

¶20

Then, referring to contents of paragraph-5 of the Rejoinder

¶21

Affidavit, it has been contended, only a bald denial has been offered in the Rejoinder Affidavit to the specific pleading made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had never submitted her offline application form. Since there is no evidence produced by the petitioner as to submission of offline application and supporting documents including essential eligibility, it cannot be said that the petitoner had complied with the terms of the Advertisement.

¶22

In absence of any dispute that the NET qualification was an essential eligibility qualification, in absence of proof of the petitioner holding such eligibility qualification having been filed by the petitioner, in the manner prescribed, the petitioner remained ineligible for selection and appointment under the Advertisement.

¶23

The fact that the petitioner may have been allowed to participate in the selection process provisionally, did not create any right in favour of the petitioner. The Procedure Rules referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail inasmuch as they do not provide for any right to arise in favour of a candidate merely because the procedure of scrutiny and rejection of application forms may not have been adopted at the first stage of submission of such application forms. Owing to large number of candidates filling up application forms for such sections, the scrutiny of documents is not possible to be performed at the first stage. This exercise is usually undertaken at a later stage when limited number of forms are scrutinized and examined.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, in the first place it is undisputed between the parties that submission of offline application form together with all supporting documents to establish eligibility, was a mandatory

¶25

condition under the Advertisement. In absence of such condition being fulfilled, the concerned candidate would remain ineligible to selection and appointment under the Advertisement. Second, merely because an otherwise ineligible candidate may have been allowed to participate in the selection process at some stages would not create eligibility that did not otherwise exist. Unless eligibility condition existed and the procedure prescribed under the Advertisement to establish such eligibility, was followed and complied by the candidate, participation by such candidate would remain provisional. Thus no right ever came to be conferred on the petitioner to participate in the selection process merely because she was allowed to appear at certain stages of that examination.

¶26

As to the Procedure Rules, those are conduct rules internal to the working of the Commission. The rules referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner only provide that the scrutiny of application forms would be done from time to time. They do not provide that the application forms once submitted must be scrutinized within any particular time or at any particular stage, failing which such scrutiny may not arise. Similarly, the rule that no candidate may be admitted to an examination unless he had applied in the prescribed form in the prescribed manner is only a rule to indicate that no rights may vest in any candidate to successfully participate in the selection process unless such condition is complied. The corollary may never be true i.e. it may never be asserted with any hope that a candidate/person who may have been permitted to appear in an examination was necessarily qualified occasioned by conduct or lapse on the part of Commission in allowing such a candidate to participate in the examination, provisionally.

¶27

In matters of eligibility and fulfillment of conditions of Advertisement, such extensions of reasoning or presumptions

¶28

may not arise. Being matters of fact essential to be established for the purposes of meaningful and successful selection and appointment process, such facts must be clearly shown to exist. Once the Commission has denied the fact of the petitioner having submitted offline application form alongwith the prescribed documents, the burden remained with the petitioner to produce before the Court cogent material/evidence to establish that such compliance had been made. That burden that may have been discharged by producing copies of dispatch made to the Commission or atleast proof of dispatch made in the shape of Registered Post etc. In the present case neither those details are available nor the petitioner has given any detail of date, Post Office etc from where such dispatch may have been made at the relevant time.

¶29

Plainly, there is no material or basis to draw any inference in favour of the petitioner that she had complied with the terms of the Advertisement. Therefore, it may remain an unfortunate fact that though qualified, the petitioner may have remained from being eligible under the Advertisement. At the same time, in view of the discussion made and the existing law that the candidates are burdened to establish not only eligibility but also fulfillment of Advertisement conditions, no relief may be granted to the petitioner as her candidature remained provisional (even under the interim order of this Court). Being held ineligible for reason of having not fulfilled the Advertisement conditions, writ petition is found to be lacking in merits. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

No order as to costs.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Faraz

¶32

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.20 10:56:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amita Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amita Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramlala Singh Shastri Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Sri Ramlala Higher Secondary School, Rawatpur, Kanpur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohammad Sahid Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others