Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing the list of non-selected candidates so far as it pertains to the petitioner in which petitioners' name and roll number has been shown at serial no. 3513.
The case set forth by the petitioner is that the respondents had issued a notification dated 16.11.2018, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition inviting applications for the post of Constables Civil Police and the PAC through direct recruitment for the year 2018.
The petitioner finding herself eligible for the same applied and qualified in the written examination. At the time of physical examination she was asked to produce the documents which she produced but thereafter instead of showing the petitioner as selected, she has been shown in the list of non-selected candidates as transpires from the perusal of the impugned list in which, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, at serial no. 3513 it is indicated "FEMALE OUT OF UP, Normalised Marks below Vertical Cut-Off OC of 193.8763".
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that once there is no such condition as indicated in the impugned list i.e. "FEMALE OUT OF UP, Normalised Marks below Vertical Cut-Off OC of 193.8763" so far as it pertains to the petitioner by which her candidature has been rejected, as such the respondents have illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner and thus he prays for quashing of the said order.
On the other hand Shri Saharsh, learned counsel for respondents, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit, argues that as per Clause 6(c)(1) of the notification dated 16.11.2018 it was specifically provided that the candidate should be in possession of domicile certificate of the year 2018 which should have been issued prior to the last date fixed for receipt of the application, in this case 08.12.2018 meaning thereby the domicile certificate should be between the date 01.01.2018 to 07.12.2018. Shri Saharsh contends that the perusal of the domicile certificate as has been annexed by the petitioner herself, copy of which is part of the annexure 3 to the petition, would indicate that one domicile certificate is dated 22.09.2015 while the other domicile certificate is dated 17.02.2019. Thus both the domicile certificates do not fall within the ambit of clause 6(c)(1) of the advertisement and as such when this fact was discovered, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. This fact has also been indicated in the order that has been issued by the respondents as it is apparent from the perusal of scrutiny sheet as has been filed as annexure CA1 to the counter affidavit. He thus contends that even if a wrong fact has been indicated against the name of the petitioner while issuing the list of unsuccessful candidates the same would not give any right to the petitioner to claim herself as selected candidate.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
Admittedly as per the Clause 6(c)(1) of the notification dated 16.11.2018, a domicile certificate should have been issued in the year 2018 and should have been of a date prior to 08.12.2018 i.e. between 01.01.2018 to 07.12.2018. Admittedly both the domicile certificates in possession of the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of the said dates i.e. one certificate is dated 22.09.2015 while the other certificate is dated 17.02.2019. Considering the same the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected as would be apparent from the perusal of scrutiny sheet, a copy of which has been filed as annexure CA1 to the couter affidavit. The respondents have also indicated in paragraph 4(v) and 4(viii) of the counter affidavit that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on account of failure to adhere to clause 6(c)(1) of the advertisement dated 16.12.2018.
Thus, it is apparent that the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondents. The mere fact that while issuing the list of unsuccessful candidates so far as the petitioner is concerned it has been indicated "FEMALE OUT OF UP, Normalised Marks below Vertical Cut-Off OC of 193.8763" would not depart from the fact that admittedly the petitioner did not have domicile certificate as per the stipulation contained in clause 6(c)(1) of the advertisement. Even if the Court sets aside the impugned list of unsuccessful candidates so far as it pertains to the petitioner, even then another illegality of the petitioner being ineligible as per clause 6(c)(1) would again arise and thus neither any futile writ can be issued nor any writ can be issued setting aside any illegal order which would give rise to another illegality.
In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Green World Corporation 2019 7 SCC 69 in paragraph 66 has held as under:
"It is now well settled that this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may, in the event an appropriate case is made out, either refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction or quash both the orders if it is found that setting aside of one illegal order would give rise to another illegality."
Considering the aforesaid, no case of interference can be made out and accordingly petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 J.K. Dinkar