Dr. Sachin Girdhari Khedikar Vs Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the petitioner’s case from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶22

2

¶23

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to quash the selection of Respondent No. 4 and declare the same selection list dated 02.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) as void and inoperative and also issue a direction for revised selection list as per the recruitment rules as stated in the clause 16.4 of the advertisement.

¶24

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order to the Respondents to issue fresh selection list for the post of lecturer of RachanaSharir by considering the marks secured in the interview by the Petitioner.

¶25

10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the petitioner’s case and select the petitioner as he is in merit as on merit-cum-waiting list.

¶26

10.5 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶27

Facts of the case are that Respondent no. 1- C.G. PSC

¶28

issued an advertisement on 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the applications were invited for the post of Lecturer, Reader in Government Ayurveda College along with other post. In the said advertisement, a condition has been stipulated that certificate of post graduation is the requisite document for appointment and the candidates were required to fulfill the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 27.01.2010. Respondent no. 1 recommended the select list (Annexure P-1) on 02.05.2011 knowing fully well that the respondent no. 4 and 2 others have not possessed the requisite qualification, on the date of submission of the applications, and the committee upon scrutiny found that respondent

¶29

3

¶30

no. 4 who was placed in the select list for the post of Rachana-Sharir got post graduation registration on 15.02.2011 and the graduation registration was mentioned as on 10.04.1995. The said selection list for the candidates who were not having requisite qualification is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed and respondent no. 1 may be directed to issue the revised select list.

¶31

Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 fairly submits that vide letter dated 17.10.2012, the State Government has considered the said anomaly in the select list. Credentials of respondent no. 4 were examined by the Expert Committee constituted by the State and she was found ineligible for appointment. The said resolution was intimated to the Public Service Commission with a request to sent the name from the waiting list which was negated by Respondent no. 1 vide its memo dated 24.01.2014 (Annexure R-1/1), as validity of the supplementary list (Annupurak) was already expired.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 would further submit that though the petitioner has received an information (Annexure P-8) through RTI regarding registration of the concerned respondent, but the present petition has been filed belatedly, as the select list (Annexure P-1) was published on 02.05.2011 i.e. after more than 1 year 5 months 13 days whereas, the present petition has been

¶33

4

¶34

filed on 15.10.2012. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, this petition is not maintainable. He would further submit that in the prayer clause, the petitioner has sought a relief to revise the selection list as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, though no such condition was mentioned. He further submits that the petitioner has no right for selection for the reason that validity period of the select list has already been expired. For all these reasons, the petition may be dismissed.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶36

This Court in the matter of Dr. Bijya Ketan Sahu vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and others {WPS No.3088/2011, decided on 21.03.2012,} placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others {(2007) 4 SCC 54} has observed at para 7 which reads thus:-

¶37

“Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application.”

¶38

5

¶39

In the said judgment, this Court has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orrisa and others {(2008) 10 SCC 687} wherein, it was held that ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application.

¶40

In the instant case, the said controversy has already been resolved and respondent no. 4 was found to be ineligible for appointment, though her name was mentioned in the select list, however, as per the condition stipulated at para 20.5 of the advertisement, the Appointing Authority has cancelled her candidature on the ground that she was not fulfilling the requisite criteria and none appears on behalf of respondent no. 4 before this Court to challenge the same.

¶41

It is well settled that a person in the select list has no right to be appointed. Nevertheless an appointment cannot be declined unless there is reason for the same and the same cannot be refused. If it is so done, it will violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶42

Immediately after receiving information through the RTI by the petitioner on 29.09.2012, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court on 15.10.2012 and vide order

¶43

6

¶44

dated 29.10.2012 this Court had directed that the respondent/s shall not appoint respondent no. 4 to 6 on the post of Lecturer ( Rachana-Sharir) till the next date of hearing. Meanwhile, the State Government has already passed an order after the issue was examined by the Committee on 17.10.2012 and cancelled the candidature of those candidates who were wrongly placed in the select list. Thereafter, the State had informed the said fact to respondent no.1 – PSC and sought fresh list. Respondent no.1 only on technical ground that the validity period of the select list has already been expired has negated the proposal of the State Government.

¶45

This Court finds that there was no fault on the part of the candidates who had applied for the said post and respondent no.1 was at fault for wrongly publishing the select list, wherein the names of the candidates who were not eligible were mentioned. So rightful candidates cannot be denied appointment on any technical ground because the claim of the candidates who had applied in the rightful manner has been denied without there being any fault on their part. The ground raised by respondent no.1 is not acceptable for the reason that if the same is allowed, it would promote anarchy and injustice.

¶46

In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent no.1 to issue fresh select list in respect

¶47

7

¶48

of the post of Lecturer ( Rachana-Sharir) against which this petition has been filed. Ordered accordingly. The said select list shall be drawn within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

It is made clear that even if in the absence of any vacancy or the post has been filled up by a subsequent advertisement, if any, a supernumerary posts shall be created for the rightful candidates who have been placed in the selection list. On such supernumerary posts being created by the State, the same shall be adjusted against the regular post whenever, vacancy arises against the regular post. After finalization of the select list by respondent no.1, respondent no. 2 and 3 shall issue appointment order after completing all the formalities, as required under the rules and procedures within a further period of 45 days.

¶50

With the aforesaid direction and observation, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶51

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶52

Shoaib

Dr. Sachin Girdhari Khedikar v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sachin Girdhari Khedikar v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Raghuveer Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parvati Sewta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Chandra Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmeshwar Bareth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shashi Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.