Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13091 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar And 5 Others Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.),Suresh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. Process of recruitment has been initiated pursuant to an advertisement published by U.P. Public Service Commission being Advertisement No. 4 of 2014-2015, whereby different posts are advertised. This Court in the present petition is concerned with 373 posts of Assistant Statistical Officer (General Recruitment), included in the advertisement. The advertisement is Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the qualification required for the post has been specified.
2. It would be necessary to reproduce the qualification at the very outset:-
“Qualification:- Essential-(1) Post-graduate degree in Mathematics or Mathematical Statistics or Commerce or Economics or Statistics from a University established by law in India or a qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(2) 'O' level Diploma in Computer awarded by DOEACC Society or at least one year Diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution.
(3) Knowledge of Hindi in Devnagri Script.
Preferential- A candidate who has (1) serve in the territorial army for a minimum period of two years, or (2) obtained a “B” certificate of National Cadet Corps, shall other things being equal, be given preference in the matter of direct recruitment.
Age-21 to 40 years. (Relaxation in age as per rules)”
3. The dispute which has given rise to filing of this writ petition is with regard to the second qualification i.e. 'O' level diploma in computer awarded by the DOEACC Society or atleast one year diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ institution.
4. Writ petitioners contend that the Commission has undertaken an exercise to determine eligibility of candidates who have applied for the post in question on the basis of which a publication is made on 3.8.2019 as per which about 800 candidates have been excluded from the zone of consideration on the ground that they are ineligible. This publication is contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition. According to the petitioners large number of ineligible candidates have been permitted to participate while persons possessing requisite qualification have been ousted/ excluded, contrary to the advertisement.
5. Taking note of the petitioners' contention, this Court permitted learned counsel for the Commission to take instructions in the matter. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri F.A. Naqvi, Advocate, have appeared on behalf of the Commission and a three member committee report was placed before the Court, Yesterday, in order to submit that it was in accordance with it that the short-listing itself has been done for permitting candidates to appear in the interview. The three member committee report in its recommendation has specified as to who all would be eligible to appear in the interview. Copy of this report was given to the counsel for the petitioners and the matter was deferred for being heard today as the interview is to commence from tomorrow i.e. 22.8.2019. The Commission was also directed to file an affidavit clarifying its stand in the matter.
6. Today when the matter is taken up, an amendment application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the three member committee report on the ground that its recommendations are inconsistent with the advertisement and the applicable service rules of 2012. The amendment application has been heard and allowed by a separate order passed on the amendment application.
7. On behalf of the Commission an affidavit has been filed today which is taken on record. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit it is stated that computer certificates of all applicants were examined by the committee of subject experts and after taking note of their opinion/consultation, the list of eligible persons got finalised. In paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit reference is made to the U.P. Government Department Statistical Service Rules, 2012 which regulates appointment to the post in question. Rule-11 of the aforesaid Rules is relevant and is being reproduced:-
“11. A candidate for direct recruitment to the various posts in the service must possess the following qualification:-
(i) Post-graduate degree in Assistant Research Office Mathematics or Mathematical Statistics or Commerce or Economics or Statistics from a University established by law in India or a qualification recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto.
(ii) 'O' level Diploma in Computer awarded by DOEACC Society or at least one year Diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution.
(iii) Knowledge of Hindi in Devnagri Script.”
8. The advertisement has already been extracted above. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission, the Commission shall restrict the consideration of candidates strictly to the Rules of 2012 as also the advertisement. According to the Commission the second essential qualification is possessing of 'O' level diploma in computer awarded by the DOEACC Society or atleast one year diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution. The institution, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission means institution established by law.
9. Upon being confronted with regard to the import of the second condition i.e. one year diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Commission, on the basis of instructions received makes a categorical statement before the Court that the one year diploma in Computer Science has to be from any recognised University or Institution established by law. It is stated that while allowing the candidates to appear in the interview, the Commission shall ensure that only those persons are permitted to appear in the interview who either possessed 'O' level diploma in computer awarded by the DOEACC Society or atleast one year diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution established by law.
10. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits with vehemence that the Commission has acted contrary to the stand which is now taken by its senior counsel today in Court. It is urged that as against the stipulation of one year diploma in Computer Science the Commission has also permitted those candidates whose diploma is in computer application. It is also urged that opportunity has been given to the other candidates to demonstrate that their diploma certificate is in accordance with the advertisement/ rules but such opportunity has been denied to petitioners.
11. In view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents that they shall not permit candidates to appear in interview unless the requirement of possessing 'O' level diploma in computer awarded by the DOEACC Society or atleast one year diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution established by law there remains no requirement of examining the three member committee report which is challenged by way of the amendment filed today. The Commission itself has taken a stand through its senior counsel not to proceed with the three member committee report, which apparently was made the basis for short-listing the candidate for interview, and to allow candidates to appear in the interview only if the second essential qualification is met, it would no longer be necessary for this Court to examine the three member committee report or to deal with the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners while challenging such report.
12. Coming to the facts of the present case the petitioners have referred to and relied upon the certificates evidencing diploma in computer application of one year duration. Certificates have been annexed in respect of all the petitioners. A perusal of the certificates annexed would clearly go to show that these certificates are issued by different private computer centers which are neither University nor are institutes established by law. According to petitioners, the private centers from which they have obtained one year diploma have either been recognised by some University or by some agency of the State or of the Central. These certificates, however, will not enable the petitioners to claim eligibility for the post in question inasmuch as their diploma in Computer Science is neither from DOEACC society nor is from any recognised University or institution established by law. The advertisement/ rules do not include a certificate issued by a private institute even if it is recognised by any University or agency of the Government. None of the petitioners, therefore, can have a valid grievance if they have not been permitted to appear in the interview.
13. The thrust of the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the process of scrutinising the application was undertaken on the basis of the three member committee report and that persons who do not qualify in terms of second essential qualification or are otherwise not eligible in view of the stand taken by the Commission have infact been allowed to participate. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioners need not cause any difficulty inasmuch as having taken a categorical stand before this Court that the Commission shall restrict consideration to candidature of those persons who have either obtained 'O' level diploma in computer awarded by the DOEACC Society or atleast one year diploma in Computer Science from any recognised University/ Institution established by law, the consideration would have to be limited to that category of applicants alone. The Commission is expected to scrutinise this aspect and to ensure that only such candidates are allowed to take part in the interview who possess requisite qualification in accordance with the advertisement and the applicable service Rules of 2012. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, would not justify any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
14. In view of the discussions made above and in light of the stand taken by the Commission, as also the statement of their senior counsel that Commission shall scrupulously comply with it, this writ petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 n.u.