BHUPENDRA SINGH MAJERA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Bhupendra Singh Majera
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J. -
(1.) THIS writ petition has challenged the decision of the Committee
constituted in terms of the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 1066
of 2011 (S/S), in its meeting held on 01.01.2012 and also sought for a
writ of mandamus declaring the hostile discrimination meted out against
the petitioners in the matter of appointment as arbitrary and illegal.
The petitioners further sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction
on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners against
the available vacancies to the post of Assistant Accountant when less
meritorious candidates have been appointed, as arbitrary and illegal.
Consequently, a writ of mandamus has been asked to forthwith appoint the
petitioners to the post of Assistant Accountant from due date, as per
their ranking in the merit list, with all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE short fact leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the
petitioners and each of them alongwith other eligible candidates duly and
successfully participated in the selection process for filling up of the
post of Assistant Accountant in the Treasury Deptt. of the State of
Uttarakhand. There is no dispute that the petitioners and each of them
were successful in written examination and it is undisputed fact that the
petitioners and each of them were selected in the test, however, their
appointment was denied as they do not possess the computer certificate
issued by any institute recognized by the State or Govt. Department. It
is the case of the writ petitioners that there is no recognized institute
who undertakes the computer course and issue certificate. Further case of
the petitioners is that there are other candidates who without producing
any certificate issued by the recognized institute, have been appointed
whereas the petitioners have been left out.
I have seen the statement and averment made in the counter affidavit and
supplementary counter affidavit. It appears that the respondents
authority have successfully established the fact that there are number of
institutes which have been recognized by the Government for imparting
computer education and eligible to issue certificate. On this score, I
feel that the petitioners ' case cannot succeed. Only point which has
appealed to this Court is that whether any other candidates not having
any requisite computer certificate from any recognized institute has been
given any appointment or not.
(3.) IN paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioners have asserted that
none of 14 persons who were appointed and joined duties in August, 2011
possessed 'O ' level certificate from D.O.E.A.C.C. The institutes from
which diploma/certificate in computer course was obtained by these 14
persons were not recognized by the Central or the State Government or
Kumaon University which has granted Post Graduate Diploma in Computer
Application is neither recognized nor authorised by the University Grant
Commission for running such a course. This paragraph 9 of the writ
petition has been dealt with in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. It
is not denied the fact that those persons were not given appointment.
Merely, it is stated that list of selected candidates was prepared
districtwise and an Enquiry Committee was constituted to verify their
certificates issued to them by the various computer institutes. The
districtwise details of candidates and the details whether their
certificates were suitable or not are given in the said paragraph.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.