NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph — Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

WPSB/35/2020 of KALYAN SINGH Vs UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Court
Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date
2020-12-31
Case number
35 of 2020

Parties

Statutes cited (1)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all BodyParagraph

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition (S/B) No. 35 of 2020

Kalyan Singh

...Petitioner

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others ...Respondents

Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Anil K. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Suyash Pant and Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand.

Dated : 18[th] June, 2020

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.01.2020, disqualifying the petitioner from the selection process, as arbitrary and illegal; writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview dated 06.02.2020 for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the Government Degree College, Uttarakhand; and writ of mandamus directing the third respondent-University to give the petitioner Ph.D. certificate in Performa 2 as sought by the first respondent.

2. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short “the Commission”) on the ground that the Ph.D. degree certificate, he had enclosed thereto, was not in the prescribed format. On his invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, an order was passed on 03.02.2020 permitting the petitioner to appear in the interview. Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner appeared in the interview. However, his result was kept in sealed cover.

3. When the matter came up before us on 16.06.2020, we had asked Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, to ascertain the marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview, and whether the petitioner had qualified therein as, in case the petitioner did not qualify, it would be unnecessary for this Court to examine whether rejection of his candidature by the Commission, on the ground that the Ph.D. certificate furnished by him was not in the prescribed format, was justified or not.

4. While contending that the Rules of the Commission require the result, kept in sealed cover, not to be opened, Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, stated that, in case this Court so requires, the sealed cover would be opened. We had, on the last date of hearing, pointed out that, in case the petitioner did not succeed in the interview, the Writ Petition would be rendered infructuous and, therefore, the sealed cover be opened.

5. Today Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission, on instructions, states that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the sealed cover was opened on 17.06.2020; the minimum cut-off marks for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) in Government Degree Colleges was 67.98 for the general category; and the petitioner, who belongs to the general category, had secured only 49 marks which is far below the cut-off marks of 67.98.

6. As the petitioner had only secured 49 marks, which is far below the cut-off marks of 67.98, it is evident that, even if his contentions on merits are accepted, he would still not be entitled to be appointed as an Assistant Professor (Physics) in Government Degree College pursuant to the selection process in which he had participated.

7. As the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of being appointed as an Assistant Professor (Physics), in the light of the low marks obtained by him, we see no reason to examine whether or not

the Commission was justified in rejecting his candidature on the ground that the Ph.D. certificate furnished by him was not in the prescribed format.

8. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) 18.06.2020 Rahul

(Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 18.06.2020