Allowed

Reedhycalog Limited Partnership v. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Uttarakhand HC20 Mar 2013WPMS/567/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission's shift from conventional to online application forms for Junior Engineer posts. The court held the change unfair and allowed petitions directing the commission to make appointments based on merit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; direction for respondents to make recommendations for appointment to the State Government within four weeks if petitioners are eligible and in merit list.

Reedhycalog Limited Partnership Vs Assistant… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition No. 567 of 2013 (S/S)

¶3

Narendra Singh Rana …..Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar ......….Respondent

¶4

Writ Petition No. 568 of 2013 (S/S)

¶5

Vikash Chandra Ramola …..Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another ......….Respondents

¶6

Writ Petition No. 664 of 2013 (S/S)

¶7

Laxmikant Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar ......….Respondent

¶8

Present:

¶9

Mr. S.K. Mandal, Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi and Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission/respondent.

¶10

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).

¶11

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission advertised several posts of Junior Engineers vide notification/advertisement dated 25.8.2011, Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. As per condition no. 17 (5) of the advertisement, successful candidates in the written examination would be provided with conventional application form by the Commission. As per condition no. 17 (6), conventional application forms, as provided by the Commission were to be filled up and submitted alongwith

¶12

¶13

required certificates/marksheets at the time of interview or anytime before the interview. Result of written examination was declared on 11.4.2013, Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. As per clause (2) of the result, date to receive conventional application form and for the interview would be published in the newspaper and would be made available on the website i.e. www.ukpsc.gov.in. Thereafter, advertisement was issued by the Commission on 12.4.2013 informing all the successful candidates in the written examination to download main application form from Google Chrome Browser and to submit it online and one printout was required to be submitted alongwith all documents by Registered Post.

¶14

Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since notification inviting applications specifically provided that conventional application form would be provided to the successful candidate in the written examination by the Commission and were to be submitted at the time of interview or at any time before interview, therefore, it was not open to the Commission to alter condition no. 17 (5) & (6) of the advertisement asking the candidates to download the application form from Google Chrome Browser and to submit it online and to submit another copy by way of Registered Post. Mr. S.K. Mandal, further contended that advertisement dated 12.4.2013 was published in the newspapers having circulation only in Uttarakhand while at the relevant time, petitioners were working outside the State of Uttarakhand. Further contends that since all eligible Indian citizens could apply for the post advertised, therefore, advertisement ought to have been issued in the newspapers having circulation throughout the territory of India. Further contended that even

¶15

¶16

otherwise application form could easily be made available on the website of the Commission instead of making application form available on Google Chrome Browser. It is further contended that petitioners were under impression that conventional application forms would be sent to them by Registered Post and were required to be submitted at any time till the date of interview, therefore, petitioners could not fill up the application form and ultimately could fill up the same at the time of interview under the interim order passed by this Court dated 23.5.2013, which were found in order and petitioners were allowed to participate in interview and were declared on merit successful, therefore, keeping in mind “Principle of Equity” selection of the petitioners should not be disturbed.

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the Commission contended that this Court in Writ Petition No. 183 of 2011 (Savita Chandola v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ) as well as judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Kumiyal v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others reported in 2011 (1) UD 148 has held that application forms received beyond stipulated time should not be accepted and candidature of such candidate is liable to be rejected. Mr. Kandpal further contended that since petitioners did not submit main application form online, as required by the advertisement dated 12.4.2013, therefore, petitioners’ candidature are liable to be rejected and petitioners cannot take benefit of interim order passed by this Court on 23.5.2013.

¶18

As observed hereinbefore, as per condition no. 17 (5) & (6) of the advertisement dated 25.8.2011 inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineers,

¶19

¶20

conventional application form would be supplied to the successful candidates in the written examination by the Commission and thereafter were to be submitted before the Commission at any time till the date of interview, therefore, in my considered opinion, it was not open to the Commission to alter this condition by asking the candidates to download main application form from Google Chrome Browser and to submit one form online and another copy by Registered Post. I find force in the submission of Mr. S.K. Mandal that petitioners were having bona fide belief that they would be provided with conventional application form by Post and thereafter conventional application form so provided would have to be submitted at any time till the date of interview.

¶21

Order dated 23.5.2013 reads as under :

¶22

“ Mr. S. K. Mandal, Advocate present for the petitioner.

¶23

Mr. B. D. Kandpal, Advocate has accepted notices on behalf of the sole respondent.

¶24

Counter affidavit be filed by the respondent within three weeks. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within three weeks thereafter.

¶25

The petitioner, who is a candidate for selection to the post of Junior Engineer, has already qualified the written examination conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Now, the petitioner is not being allowed to appear in the interview, as he had not filled the online form and the printout of the duly filled online form has not been sent to the Commission.

¶26

Petitioner contends that he was never informed about the date of interview and he had no information that in order to appear in the interview, the candidate had to fill the online form on the website of Commission and thereafter had to take out the print of the duly filled online form and had to send it to the Commission.

¶27

The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission contends that all the successful

¶28

¶29

candidates of the written examination have been informed about the interview procedure through a public notification published in a newspaper on 12.04.2013 and uploaded in the website of the Commission.

¶30

In any case, most of the details/particulars of the petitioner is already with the Commission and it is admitted that the successful candidates were never informed personally by the Commission that they had had to fill online form on the website and thereafter had to take out the print of the duly filled online form and had to send it to the Commission.

¶31

As an interim measure, the respondent authority is directed to permit the petitioner provisionally to appear in the oncoming interview. However, the permission to appear in the interview shall be subject to the final determination of the writ petition.

¶32

List this matter after seven weeks in the daily cause list.”

¶33

Undisputedly, under the interim order dated 23.5.2013, all the petitioners were provided with the application form by the Commission, which were submitted by the petitioners at the time of interview and were checked and found in order and, thereafter, petitioners were permitted to appear in interview provisionally and were ultimately declared successful on merit, therefore, in my considered opinion, application forms submitted by the petitioners at the time of interview were in fact in accordance with the original condition no. 17 (5) & (6) of the advertisement dated 25.8.2011 inviting applications for the posts of Junior Engineers.

¶34

Not only this, since petitioners have already been declared successful and submission of main forms were found to be in order, therefore, at this stage, rejection of the candidature of the petitioners would amount to great hardship to the petitioners. Therefore,

¶35

¶36

considering the equity, I do not find any reason to reject the candidature of the petitioners.

¶37

Consequently, writ petitions are allowed with the direction to the respondent that if petitioners are otherwise found eligible and are in the merit list, recommendation shall be made in favour of the petitioners to the State Government for their appointment. Let needful be done within four weeks positively.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

Avneet

¶40

(Alok Singh, J.) 4.3.2014

Reedhycalog Limited Partnership v. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reedhycalog Limited Partnership v. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrish Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Akshay Kumar and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Madhusudan Chaudhary and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Ganesh Dutt Joshi Vs Ramesh Singh Rana and Another

Devraj Singh Bisht Vs Bhuwan Singh Gunjiyal

Gajendra Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.