Allowed

Pooja Chamoli v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission through Its Secretary

Uttarakhand HC4 Dec 2023WPSS/1165/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash an order rejecting the petitioner's eligibility for a public service examination. The court found the rejection based on non-submission of documents was erroneous as valid proofs were submitted and recognized, granting the petitioner the right to appear and recommending appointment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection order dated 07.01.2020 quashed. Petitioner declared eligible for Mains Examination. Commission directed to declare result and recommend appointment within three weeks.

Pooja Chamoli Vs Uttarakhand Public Service… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1165 of 2020

¶2

Pooja Chamoli ....Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & others ….Respondents

¶5

Presence:-

¶6

Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Chandrashekhar Dalakoti, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

¶8

Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand.

¶9

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

¶10

Supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent is taken on record. Miscellaneous application (IA/12796/2023) made therefor, stands disposed of.

¶11

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a prayer of writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by respondent-commission and further consequential relief to permit her to appear in the Mains Examination of Uttarakhand Secretariat/Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (UKPSC), Additional Private Secretary (APS) Examination 2017, in which she was declared successful in preliminary examination conducted by the respondents.

¶12

The facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that the petitioner, who is otherwise eligible, submitted her candidature for the post of Additional Private Secretary in Uttarakhand Secretariat/UKPSC, APS Examination 2017 pursuant to advertisement dated 31.07.2017 (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition). The

¶13

¶14

petitioner appeared in the Preliminary Examination and she was declared successful provisionally vide result declared on 11.04.2018, for the reason that her certificate which she annexed as Computer Course Certificate, was not found fit by the Commission. The respondentCommission vide order dated 14.10.2019 declared the petitioner as ineligible as due to the deficiency mentioned hereinabove and her name found placed at S.No.611 of the said letter, which reflects the reason for her being ineligible (Annexure No.6 to the rejoinder affidavit). According to the said rejection order, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement regarding the educational qualifications, the petitioner should possess one year Computer Course Certificate alongwith her graduate degree, from a recognized Institution/University, but her certificate which she produced from APTEC Computer Education ADSE (Shikhar Project) does not mention the period of course undergone by her. However, by the same letter, the petitioner was given one month’s time ending on 04.11.2019 to represent regarding the ineligibility so pointed out to the respondent-Commission by filing a representation and it has also been cautioned in the said letter that no representation received after 04.11.2019 shall be considered.

¶15

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent-Commission on 25.10.2019 annexing all the photocopies of the marksheets (Performance Statement of Module-1 to Module-6A) and the photocopy of diploma course in computer from APTEC Computer Education. The respondent-Commission decided the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure

¶16

¶17

No.6 to the writ petition) and rejected it for the reason that according to the Commission, the petitioner has not submitted the cogent evidence in support of her documents/Computer Certificates on the last date of receipt of the representation i.e. 04.11.2019.

¶18

It is against this order of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, she is before this Court.

¶19

Respondent-Commission has filed counter affidavit and from the language of Para 9 of counter affidavit, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner has submitted her representation prior to the last date of submission of representation i.e.04.11.2019 in the office of Commission. The reason for not accepting the representation of the petitioner is reflected in Para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, which is reproduced below:

¶20

“Para 9: That the contents of para no. 7 & 8 of the writ petition are not admitted, hence denied. In reply thereof it is submitted that vide notification dated 11-04-2018 the result of the Preliminary Examination was declared, wherein the petitioner was declared successful to participate in the main examination.

¶21

It is also pertinent to mention here that in Note-1 of the aforesaid examination result dated 11.04.2018, it has clearly been mentioned that the said examination result is being declared on the basis of claims made in the application form by the candidates, such as, educational qualification, permanent residence, vertical/horizontal reservation etc., the scrutiny of the records relating to the claims made by the candidates in their application form. If any discrepancy is found in the claims and records or if the claims and records are found untrue/incorrect, then the candidate will not be allowed to appear in the Main Examination by the Commission and his/her candidature will be cancelled at any stage.

¶22

It is further stated here that after submission of all the essential certificates alongwith Computer Certificate issued by the APTEC Computer Education ADSC (Shikhar Project), it was found by the authority concerned that the computer certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance to the said advertisement as well as the date

¶23

¶24

of issuance has not been mentioned and also the said Institute from where the petitioner got her certificate has not recognized by the State Government, hence on the basis of aforesaid facts vide order dated 14-10-2019 the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected and declared unsuccessful by the answering respondent.

¶25

As such the candidates who have been declared disqualified by the Commission were provided an opportunity to submit their representation along with evidence/confirmed certificate in respect of their disqualification till 4.11.2019 in the office of the Commission. Pursuant to that a representation dated 2510-2019 along with Computer Certificate issued by APTECH Computer Education ADSC has been submitted by the petitioner in the office of the answering respondent. That after due consideration on the representation of the petitioner by the Commission, the petitioner has been declared finally disqualified for the post in question by keeping intact the earlier decision of disqualification passed by the Commission for not producing correct documents/certificates in support of his claim in the office of the Commission till last date of submission i.e. 4-112019. Accordingly, vide office memorandum/ representation disposal list dated 07-01-2020 (contained as Annexure No. 6) the representation of the petitioner has been disposed off and declared unsuccessful.”

¶26

There is no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court that the petitioner has submitted her representation to the Commission well before 04.11.2019. But the same was not considered by the Commission, as according to the Commission the documents/certificates in support of the claim of the petitioner were not produced till last date of submission i.e. 04.11.2019 and accordingly, the same was rejected by the Commission. The petitioner has annexed the representation which was sent to the Commission alongwith her documents of qualifications as she obtained from APTEC Computer Education ADSE (Shikhar Project), the photocopies of which were also annexed with representation dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition).

¶27

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the writ petition, it is found that the petitioner had undergone the computer course from APTEC Computer Education ADSE (Shikhar Project) and the marksheets of three years clearly demonstrates that the first marksheet was issued on 19.03.2007, while the last one was issued on 07.08.2009, which makes it a course of 2 years and 5 months approximately and accordingly, APTEC Computer Education was also issued a certificate to the petitioner on her successful completion of ADSE Course on 07.08.2009. These are the documents/certificates, which were annexed by the petitioner with her representation, but it is strange as to how the respondent-Commission says that the documents of Computer Education qualification were not annexed with the representation by the petitioner in support of her claim.

¶29

From these documents, it appears that the petitioner is far ahead of the qualifications required by the Commission for the selection for the post of Additional Private Secretary in Uttarakhand Secretariat/UKPSC.

¶30

So far as the stand of Commission that the Computer Education Certificate was not issued from a Institution recognized by the State Government is concerned, that stand was later on withdrawn by the Commission. In Para 3 of supplementary counter affidavit, the Commission categorically stated that the Computer Education Certificate of the petitioner is a valid qualification, which was recognized by the State Government vide letter dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure No.SCA-1 to supplementary counter affidavit).

¶31

¶32

The upshot of the aforesaid discussion results into the quashing of the impugned rejection order dated 07.01.2020 passed by respondent-Commission. The petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appearing in the Mains Examination. Petitioner has already appeared in the Mains Examination which was conducted by the Commission, on the interim order dated 06.10.2020 passed by this Court in WPSS No.1164 of 2020 and the batch of writ petitions.

¶33

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent-commission, by which the petitioner was found disqualified and her candidature was rejected, is hereby quashed.

¶34

The respondent-Commission is directed to declare the result of the petitioner at the earliest, but not later than three weeks, and if she falls within the merit list in her category, she shall be recommended for appointment.

¶35

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Pooja Chamoli v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Chamoli v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Uma Khati Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Smt. Meera Vs State of Uttarakhand , through Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare

Aaradhana Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jagdish Ram Vs Union of India through Secretary Home

Kapil Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakesh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand