The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition by a candidate challenging his rejection for the post of Examination Controller. The court held that the absence of specific details regarding examination conducting experience in the application form invalidated the vague certificate relied upon by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10176 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Dr.Ram Narayan Singh S/O- Sheo Shankar Singh R/O - Village - Ujain Lohiar, P.O.- Gayghat, P.S. - Harsidhi, Dist.East Champaran
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s ======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh Gp15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER
8 13-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
University.
The University published an Advertisement No. 02/2009 inter alia for the post of Examination Controller in the unreserved category. The petitioner was the only candidate who appeared but has not been found fit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he fulfilled the eligibility requirement of 10 years teaching experience along with experience of conducting examinations. He had furnished details of his teaching experience supported
Patna High Court CWJC No.10176 of 2012 (8) dt.13-12-2012
2 / 5
by a certificate dated 10.9.2007 from the Principal of the College. His eligibility was scrutinized and after satisfaction he was called for interview. The respondents are raising frivolous objections with regard to eligibility as an afterthought. The respondents are well aware that his initial appointment as a Lecturer awaiting the publication of M.A. result was in terms of the Advertisement and his services were later confirmed from the initial date of appointment. The course of Library science was pursued by Distance education. Leave was taken as required for the P.hd course. Denial of leave to pursue the L.L.B. course led him to resign.
Learned counsel for the University raised a preliminary objection that the typed copy of the Advertisement placed on behalf of the petitioner was incorrect. The Advertisement stipulated 10 years of teaching experience “and” experience of conducting examinations. The petitioner has misquoted it as “or”. The writ application is therefore fit to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Counsel for the petitioner stated that it appears to be an inadvertent error. The Court is inclined to believe it as the printer’s devil.
It is not considered necessary to deal with all issues raised in the writ application, as it can easily be disposed off on a singular issue only.
The application was to be submitted in a printed
Patna High Court CWJC No.10176 of 2012 (8) dt.13-12-2012
3 / 5
prescribed form. It was a part of the selection process. Errors by a candidate in not furnishing information as required cannot be wished away as irrelevant omissions supported collaterally. The candidate was required to be careful while filling up the application form and ensure that it was complete in all respects with no omissions regarding eligibility and fulfillment of conditions. The application form contained a clause with regard to details of office experience/administrative experience in University/college. A separate column was mentioned regarding previous appointments/work experience (in chronological order starting with the post held recently). In both the columns the petitioner did not mention any details for experience of having conducted examinations at the college level. The petitioner was required to specifically mention his experience in conducting examinations, if not the years of the same also at least the number of examinations conducted by him. In absence of any entry for experience in conducting examinations, the certificate from the Principal of the college inter alia that he had conducted examinations also without any reference to date or year cannot make his application valid. The clause at the end of the Advertisement requiring self-attested enclosures obviously has to be related to information otherwise mentioned in the prescribed application form. To allow his candidature on basis of the certificate, in absence of entries in the application form may amount to rewriting the application form vis-à-vis other
Patna High Court CWJC No.10176 of 2012 (8) dt.13-12-2012
4 / 5
candidates who could equally have contended that they could also have furnished additional information if they were aware that without filling up the relevant columns they could have furnished information indirectly in support of eligibility. The position may be considered to evidence without pleadings.
The certificate of the Principal dated 10.9.2007 sought to be relied upon is too vague. It only states that “ he has also conducted examinations at this centre competently”. If the certificate could have stated the period of teaching experience, it could certainly have also indicated the number of examination or at least the years in which the petitioner had conducted the same. A general certificate without details can be a poor substitute for a person unable to furnish details.
The conclusion of the University that he did not have the experience for conducting examinations, on basis of the aforesaid discussion, examined from the point of view of a reasonable and prudent person cannot be held to be arbitrary or perverse requiring interference.
The Court finds it difficult to uphold the submission that if after scrutiny he was called for interview, satisfied of his eligibility, the University was estopped from raising pre-scrutiny objections. An error in calling an ineligible applicant can be rectified at any stage. It was noticed in (2008) 9 SCC 403 (T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu ) as follows:-
“12. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection
Patna High Court CWJC No.10176 of 2012 (8) dt.13-12-2012
5 / 5
process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in the selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light.”
The Court finds no merit in the application. It is
P. Kumar/-
(Navin Sinha, J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's lack of specific entry for examination conducting experience in the application form makes him ineligible despite a vague certificate from the Principal.
Whether the selection authority is estopped from rejecting an applicant who was called for the interview after an initial screening error.
Whether the University's decision to deem the petitioner ineligible was arbitrary or perverse.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T. Jayakumar v. A. GopuApplied¶33
(2008) 9 SCC 403 · Who else cites this
Dr. Ram Narayan Singh
The State Of Bihar
The Patna University
The Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt.
The Hon'Ble Chancellor Of University
The Vice-Chancellor, Patna University
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
