WPSS/8/2015 of Ms Pooja Pant Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 8/2015

Ms. Pooja Pant

……..Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others …..Respondents

Mr. S. Bhupendra Singh and Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocates, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Pandey, Brief Holder, for the State/ respondents nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3.

Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the respondent no. 4.

With

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2160/2014

Ms. Pooja Pant

……..Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others …..Respondents

Mr. S. Bhupendra Singh and Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pandey, Brief Holder, for the State/respondents nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3.

June 4, 2015

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

The controversy is akin, raised by the same

petitioner, hence both these petitions are taken up together for adjudication.

Ms. Pooja Pant is Post Graduate in English subject. So, she responded to the advertisement for the appointment on the post of Lecturer in the following grant-in-aid schools. Such schools are as under:

(a) Inter College, Lakhan Mandi, Chorgalia,

District Nainital (In WPSS 2160/2014); (b) Smt. Govindi Devi Inter College, Belpokhra, District Nainital (In WPSS 8/2015); and

(c) Kundan Lal Shah Trust, Nagar Palika Inter College, Ashdel, Nainital (In WPSS 8/2015).

The applicants were short-listed and, admittedly, Ms. Pooja Pant was one of them. At this juncture, it is pertinent to make it clear that there was no written test to be conducted for such post under the regulations framed by the Uttarakhand School Education Board and the merits of the candidates had to be evaluated, inter alia, on the basis of sundry factors including the percentage of marks secured at different levels right from high school to the post graduation and even upward. That apart, the teaching experience (if any) had also to credit score. All these markings were of maximum 175, besides the marking of interview to the maximum of 25.

Ms. Pooja Pant having been apprehended that the selection is not going to be fare on account of the intervention by the Manager, Members of the Management Committee, State Education Officers, etc., challenged the ongoing process of selection by way of filing these writ petitions. She has contended that in order to pave the way for selection of only favoured candidates, deliberately the advertisement has been published having omission of the maximum age of the candidates, who could have applied for the post. This is unlike of other advertisements published by other colleges for the similar post, where the maximum age limit is displayed as 35 years.

It was contended further that of course, the relaxation in the age can be granted as per the rules framed by the Government for the candidates of certain reserved classes, but here no such maximum age was countenanced in the advertisement just to favour the desired candidate and to ensure his/her final selection.

Learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents have collectively taken this Court to the Regulations framed

by the Board wherein for such advertisement, no such provision of the upper limit age is envisaged.

The Court feels that if there is such an omission in the regulations aforementioned, then certainly the framers of such rules have not applied their mind and contemplated the eventuality that in the absence of any upper age limit, which cannot be thought of for government job, even the person running in his late fifties can apply after attaining some bogus teaching experience of any educational institution having no standards. Thus, he will be able to manage his credential high to leave behind meritorious candidate.

The argument of learned Counsel for the respondents that these are grant-in-aid schools, so it cannot be compared with the government institutions, is not acceptable to this Court for the reason that the Government incurs the burden of the payments of the entire salary to the teaching and the ministerial staff of such institutions. These are being run at the cost of the Government Exchequer and imparting education to the public like other government educational institutions. The rules framed by the Government, which are called as Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education (Lecturer’s Cadre) Service Rules, 2008, also envisage the maximum age limit for induction in the government service. If the rules framed by the Board are such which are contrary to the rules framed by the Government for similar institutions, then certainly such rules are against the norms of accepted standards and leave the smell where the possibility of corruption to the whims and caprices of the Manager, Members of the Management Committee and the State Education Officers could hardly be ruled out. Better the Board may ponder to amend and modify the rules accordingly.

It was argued by learned Counsel for the respondents that the maximum age limit has not been prescribed for the reason that the people, as matter of course, do not apply for being appointed in these institutions. This is such an argument which is totally baseless and not acceptable for the reason that salary of these teachers is at par with the government teachers and there is contest for induction in the services of these institutions even on the post of Class IV and this thing is obvious from these petitions itself.

Learned Counsel for the respondents cited two precedents, Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others v. Anil Joshi and Others, AIR 2013 SC 1613, and Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand & Others, (2011) 1 SCC 150. In both these cases, the premise was upheld up to the level of Hon’ble Apex Court that once candidate has participated in the selection process and such process has been finalised, then the Doctrine of Waiver comes in the way hampering the course of challenging such selection in the Courts. Both these precedents, to my mind, are not attracted in the present controversy for the reason, firstly, that the selection process still is underway and has not been completed. Even the interviews have not been held, much less any written test. Secondly, the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma, which went up to the Apex Court, the appellant petitioner was not selected, nonetheless he secured certain more marks from the candidate last selected because he did not qualify the basic requisite/qualification which was indispensable for applying to the post and such basic qualification was to have the knowledge of computer operation. Such requirement was made clear in the advertisement itself. So, with these facts, after the final selection list was declared,

the challenge of Mr. Virendra Kumar Verma was turned down up to the level of Apex Court.

In the second precedent of Ramesh Chandra Shah, an advertisement was issued by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education and pursuant to such written test was conducted and there were the controversies as regards the diploma holders or the degree holders on the subject of Pharmacy. Selection process had been completed. Then it was challenged by the failed candidates. So, this case was also in the different context and analogy and hence the law laid down in that case, too, is not attracted in the present controversy because in both these instant cases, no written examination has been conducted by any body meant for it.

In view of what has been stated above, the Court feels that the advertisements issued by all these three colleges are not sustainable and the same are hereby quashed so long as for the post of lecturer English. The respondents are directed that if they want to fill up the post of Lecturer in any such colleges, they will advertise the post in noticeable words in some daily newspapers having wide circulation in the State entailing the minimum as well as the maximum age limit, which should not be in the contravention of the rules of 2008. They should also mention whether the post is temporary or permanent as well as the scale of pay and all other maximum relevant details which are possible at their end enabling all such persons who have every right to present themselves as suitable candidates for the same. Every precaution shall be taken by the Management Committee that no undue favour is extended to any person, whosoever.

Both these petitions stand allowed accordingly.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)