Dismissed

Girish Chandra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022WRIA/3004/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six petitioners challenged the exclusion of interview calls by the U.P. Public Service Commission, claiming failure to submit experience certificates was due to procedural lapses by the Commission. This court held that despite an extended deadline, the petitioners failed to comply with mandatory submission requirements, rendering their petition unsustainable in law.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the result declaration of the U.P. Public Service Commission was dismissed.

Girish Chandra and 5 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3004 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Girish Chandra And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate, Sri Ashok Khare

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission and, learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

Present petition has been filed by six petitioners seeking quashing of the result declared by the U.P. Public Service Commission pertaining to selection on the post of Principal at various Government Inter Colleges under Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service (PCS) (General Recruitment)/Physically Handicap - Backlog/Special Examination 2018 conducted under Advertisement No. A-2/E1/2018 dated 06.07.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the Advertisement). All the petitioners had participated up to the stage of written examination. None was called for interview. Later, upon declaration of the result, they claimed to have met the requirement of cut-off marks for their individual category. Yet, they were not called for interview, for oblique reasons.

¶9

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit, under the Advertisement, common examination was to be conducted for 15 services/types of post. The post of Principal at Government Inter College was described as category-7 post. Under the said Advertisement, the application form was to be filled up through online mode only. All relevant particulars

¶10

were to be filled up and submitted in the manner prescribed. Comparing the Advertisement to the subsequent advertisement issued by the Commission being Advertisement No. A-1/E1/2020-21 dated 05.02.2021, it has been submitted, under the Advertisement in question, no proforma was prescribed to submit a experience certificate. That proforma came to be prescribed for the first time under the subsequent Advertisement (referred to above).

¶11

Therefore, at the stage of filling up of forms, the petitioners were prevented (for reasons attributable solely to the Commission), from submitting their experience certificate/s. Further, each petitioner had filled up requisite details disclosing his educational qualifications together with the date of initial joining re experience gained. Thus, it has been stressed, eligibility condition has been met by each petitioner. It was disclosed, to the extent it was possible under the procedure adopted by the Commission.

¶12

Then, reference has been made to Clause 12 (8) of the Advertisement to submit, the Commission itself had notified and thus provided for verification of essential certificates (including experience certificate), at the stage of interview. Unless the petitioners had been first called for interview, they could never have fulfilled the eligibility requirement prescribed by the Commission. In other words, according to learned senior counsel for the petitioners, if they had been called for interview, the petitioners would have, at that stage, availed that opportunity and submitted requisite experience certificate/s.

¶13

Third, with respect to subsequent Notification No. 15/7/E2/2017-18 dated 07.05.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification) issued by the Commission, it has been submitted, that was clearly not part of the original Advertisement. Since

¶14

the original Advertisement did not provide for submission of experience certificate on any proforma, the petitioners remained prevented from making that compliance, for reasons attributable solely to the Commission.

¶15

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the Commission would submit, the submission of the applications (pursuant to the Advertisement in question), was at two stages. At the first stage, keeping in mind the large number of applications that were received by the Commission, no requirement was enforced on any candidate to submit either through online or offline mode any certificate required to be submitted in support of such application. All (otherwise complete) applications were entertained, provisionally. Second, it has been pointed out, being a combined examination for different services and courses requiring different qualifications and therefore certifications, the Commission in its wisdom did not enforce the requirement of submission of supporting certificate/s, at the first stage of the application being made.

¶16

At that stage, the basic application was considered to call different candidates for the purpose of preliminary examination. That examination was held on 28.10.2018. Upon declaration of its result, the majority of candidates had already been screened out. Those who were successful at the preliminary examination were required to submit the second stage application wherein such candidates were called upon to apply through online mode and to submit a hard-copy of the same together with supporting documents, before the cut-off date. That prescription became necessary for reasons of practicality as also to give a fair opportunity to those candidates who were found eligible at the preliminary examination. At that stage, supporting documents such as the experience certificate were required to be submitted. That mechanism was provided by way of supplement (to the

¶17

Advertisement in question), by issuance of Notification. Clause 2 and 3 of the Notification read as below:

¶18

"2. सभभसतररपरआनललइनससचनलएएभरननकनपशचलतत "Submit करदद।आनललइन "Submit ककयनगयन फलररसनटककरमकदतकरहक।आनललइनफलररसनट "Submit" करननकनउपरलनतआयकगदलरलकनरल र रत सरयरदहभअभयरररयरककयकदककईतमकटपकलशरदआतभहहतकउसकनसएशकरनहनतमकनवलएकबलर सएशकरन (Edit) आयकगककवनबसलइट http://uppsc.up.nic.in कन "Home Page" परपदकशरतकवकलप Click here to "Modify online details after Submission for Combined State / Upper Subordinate Services (Gen. Rect. / P.H.Backlog/Spl. Rect (M) Exam-2018" परककलककरकन करसकतनहह।उपरककपककयलकदनलएक 22 May 2019 तकसहभ - सहभएवएसलवरलनभपसवरकभरनल समकनकशचतकरद।इसकनअकतररकजलकतपरलण - पत , सवतएततलसएगलरस न लनभकनआरशतरकलपरलण - पत , कदवयलएगतलपरलण - पत , भस . पस . सह . कलपरलण - पत , अनमभवपरलण - पतकनपलरपएवएअनमदनशकक PDF File वनबसलइटपरउपलबरहह।

¶19

ऑनललइनभरनगयनफलररसनट (आवनदनपत) ककरमकदतकरकनउसकनसलरसरसतसएलगकक (पतयनकवरर ककअएकतलरलकलओ, उपलररयरतरलअनयसभभदलवरसनसमबकनरतपरलण-पतरककसवपरलकणतपकतयलय) सकहतएकरलफलफनरदभरकरतरलउकरलफलफनपररमकदतपतलपचर (Address Slip) चसपलकरकदनलएक 29 May 2019 कक 5:00 PM तकअरवलउसकनपसवरसकचवउ०प०लककसनवलआयकग (परभकलअनमभलग3), 10-कसतसरबलगलएरभरलगर, पयलगरलज, कपनककडनए-211018 ककपएजभककतडलकदलरलअरवलवयककगत रपसनआयकगकनगनटसएखयल-3 परकसरकतडलकअनमभलगकनकलउनटर (पसछ-तलछकलउनटर) परअवशय उपलबरकरलदद।उवतअकनतरकतररकनबलदपलपहकननवललनआवनदन-पतककसभभभदशलरदसवभकलरनहह ककएजलएएगन।"

¶20

Thus, relying heavily on the said Notification, it has been submitted, both opportunity to submit experience certificate as also the format for that purpose were prescribed and made available to all candidates successful at the preliminary examination, including the petitioners. The cut-off date prescribed under the said Notification was 29.05.2019.

¶21

Not only the petitioners were given such opportunity, they also availed the same. Thus, by way of example, reference has been made to the application form submitted by the petitioner no.1, at the second stage. It is dated 21.05.2019. Then, referring to important instruction no.2 mentioned at the top of the application proforma itself, it has been submitted, the requirement to submit all original certificates was not only prescribed in that Notification but the same was also clearly mentioned at the top of the application form itself. It reads as below:

¶22

"(2) शहकककअहरतलसमबनरभआन-ललइनआवनदनरदककयनगयनदलवनककपमकषरदसभभउपलररयर, परलण-पतर तरलअएकतलरलकलओएककसवपरलकणतपकतयरइसआवनदनपतकनसलरसएलगकरनलअकनवलयरहह।ऐसलन ककएजलननपरउनकलअभयररनआयकगदलरलकनरसतकरकदयलजलयनगल।"

¶23

While the candidates who were successful at the written

¶24

examination and were called for interview complied in letter and spirit with the Advertisement read with the Notification and the instructions contained in the application form submitted at the second level, the petitioners made part compliance of the same. Referring to the application form submitted by petitioner no.1, it has been shown, the said petitioner submitted 14 certificates of educational qualifications etc. However, he did not submit the experience certificate. In absence of experience certificate, there was no verification possible to be made of the experience claimed by the petitioners. In face of that reason alone, none of the petitioners were called for interview.

¶25

Last, reference has been made to decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Lav Kush vs State of U.P. & Ors., Writ – A No. 7702 of 2020 dated 19.10.2020 to submit, similar relief claimed by other similarly situated persons (though that relief was worded differently), was declined. That decision of the learned single Judge has attained finality upon dismissal of the Special Appeal Defective No. 2 of 2021 vide order dated 08.01.2021.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, in the first place by way of principle, it must remain undisputed that the terms and conditions laid down in the Advertisement are sacrosanct. Unless shown to be contrary to any statutory/higher law, they are the law that would bind the parties affected by it. To that end, the petitioners do not contend that the Advertisement was contrary to any higher law.

¶27

Seen in that light, the Advertisement nowhere required or allowed the applicants to submit certificate/s including experience certificate at the stage after conclusion of the written examination. Plainly, by virtue of clause 12(8), the Advertisement only provided that the original certificates would

¶28

be examined/verified (by the Commission) at the stage of interview. Then, the Note appended to clause 12 of the Advertisement itself provided, in absence of mark-sheet, certificate etc. being appended to the application, the candidature of such candidate would stand cancelled. It would be useful to extract the clause 12(8) of the Note to the Advertisement. It reads:

¶29

"(8) रसलपरलणपतरककजलयचसलकलतकलरकनसरयहकगभ, उससरयअभयरररयरककदक फकटकगलफअपननकवभलगलधयकअरवलउससएसरलकनपरलनदलरलजहलयउनहरननअकनतर कशकलपलयभहकअरवलककसभरलजपकततअररकलरभदलरलपरलकणततरलदकसलदनफकटकगलफ भभपसतमतकरनलहकगल।

¶30

नकट:- अभयरररयर कक सकमररलत रलजय/ पवर अरभनसर सनवल (सलरलनय चयन/कदवयलएगजन- बहकललग/ कवशनरयमनकपरभकलतरलसहलयकवनसएरकक/ कनतभय वनअररकलरभसनवलपरभकलककरमखयपरभकल(रलरखतपरभकल) कनआवनदनपतररदककयन जलननवललनसरसतदलवरककपमकषरदसवपरलकणतअएकपत/ परलणपतसएलगकरनल अकनवलयरहह।यकदवनसरसतदलवरककपमकषरदसवपरलकणतअएकपत/ परलणपतसएलग नहहकरतनहहतकउनकलअभयररनकनरसतकरकदयलजलयनगल।"

¶31

Therefore, in view of the 'Note' extracted above, the parties may not be right in contending-at the first stage of submission of applications, the petitioners were not required to submit supporting documents in the shape of mark-sheets and certificates etc. However, the fact, such relaxation may have been generally granted to all the applicants by the Commission may not affect the outcome of the present petition for the reason to follow. It did not alter the terms of the advertisement and no right was vested with the petitioners. In any case provisional candidature, creates no rights.

¶32

Thus, despite such relaxation granted at the stage of preliminary examination, the petitioners remained obligated to have such documents verified by the Commission at the stage of interview. Therefore, their candidature remained provisional. No evidence exists of the petitioners having uploaded the

¶33

necessary documents at the first stage of the examination. There is also no plea or evidence of experience certificate having been uploaded by any of the petitioners at that stage.

¶34

In that context and background fact, the Notification issued by the Commission only supplemented the procedure prescribed under the Advertisement. It facilitates and, if at all, grants benefit to all the applicants to submit supporting documents such as mark-sheets and certificates under extended date line- at the stage of submission of second application filed, the course of selection process (undertaken under the Advertisement). Thus, even if the petitioners had not uploaded the necessary experience certificate along with their first application, they were granted another opportunity by the Commission to submit such certificate/s latest by 29.05.2019.

¶35

Thus, the Notification did not seek to alter the process of selection to the prejudice of the petitioners. Rather, it was beneficial to the petitioners inasmuch as against the original cut-off dated 06.08.2018 prescribed under the Advertisement- to submit the first application, they were granted a second opportunity to cure the deficiency in that regard, by 29.05.2019. Being beneficial to the petitioners, they cannot be heard as to any prejudice caused to them by issuance of the said Notification.

¶36

Then, not only the Notification was beneficial to the petitioners, they also applied thereunder. Having applied under the Notification, petitioners may never be heard to question the procedure prescribed under that Notification. Though the petitioners submitted such/second applications, they failed to comply with the condition of making available the experience certificate which condition was contained in the original Advertisement and as was facilitated by the Notification.

¶37

As to the consequence of non-compliance of that condition, the petitioners were always aware, they stood the risk of cancellation of their candidature without any further proceeding conducted by the Commission. That consequence was mentioned by way of Note to Clause 12 of the Advertisement as also in Clause 2 & 3 of the Notification as also by way of important information no.2 mentioned at the top of the application form filled up by the petitioners, at the second stage.

¶38

Therefore, the petitioners cannot be heard to say, they have been non-suited contrary to the terms of the Advertisement and without any opportunity, etc. A candidate who fails to comply with the terms of the Advertisement or the selection procedure may never be granted any indulgence by the writ court to allow him to compete successfully, at such selection.

¶39

What survives for consideration is, whether the Commission could have otherwise sought verification of the information of experience disclosed by the petitioners in the requisite column to the applications submitted by them (at the second stage). Once a procedure was prescribed by the Commission to submit an experience certificate that it could verify later, the Commission could not be compelled to verify such experience in absence of certificate submitted by the petitioners. As noted above, the selection procedure being sacrosanct, no exceptions may be drawn to the same when the petitioners are not shown to have not complied with it.

¶40

Last, it may be noted, the petitioners are not right in contending that the proforma of experience certificate was not available. Though it is true, at the stage of Advertisement, such proforma was not advertised while certain other proformas were prescribed with the Advertisement, at the same time, in the face of part compliance made by the petitioners at the stage of

¶41

submission of the second application under the Notification, they cannot be heard to say that such proforma was not available or known to them. Clause 2 of the Notification (as noted above), clearly declared that the proforma for experience certificate was available in PDF on the official website of the Commission. There is no denial of that. In that light, the fact that the petitioners did not submit the experience certificate, became fatal to their claim.

¶42

For the reasons noted above, writ petition must fails and is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶43

Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Prakhar

¶44

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.12.06 10:06:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Girish Chandra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Chandra and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Tiwari and 16 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Dhirendra Pratap Ojha and 4 Others Vs State of U P and Another

Mahipal Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukat Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vijendra Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others