GAURAV KUMAR PANT Vs. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Gaurav Kumar Pant
UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. -
(1.) THE State has not filed its counter affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel says that the State is only a proforma party as the main dispute is between the petitioner and Public Service Commission and the private respondents. Private respondent has filed another supplementary affidavit which is taken on record. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to file the rejoinder affidavit.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for respondent No. 4 on merit. The petitioner was a candidate for examination for the post of Naib Tehsildar (i.e. a Revenue Official) which was conducted by State Public Service Commission. The short dispute in the present matter is that one of the essential conditions for a candidate in the above examination was to indicate in the application form as to whether he is in Government service or not. The second information which a candidate had to give was as to whether his name is registered with the State Employment Exchange. Admittedly for both the columns, the petitioner has not given information. Meaning thereby that he was neither an employee of the State Government nor he was registered with the State Employment Exchange Department. The petitioner participated in the said examination and first appeared in preliminary examination. After qualifying the preliminary examination, the petitioner appeared in the main written examination and thereafter after qualifying the main examination, he appeared in the interview finally on 20.2.2013. In the said examination the petitioner appeared as general category candidate. Ultimately the public service commission rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not filed his registration number with the State Employment Exchange which was mandatory, as admittedly the petitioner was not an employee of the State or Central Government. Furnishing of the registration number with the Employment Exchange was a mandatory condition. This condition was exempted only in the case of Government employees or also in the case of Ex -servicemen who were registered with the District Soldier Board. Since the petitioner came neither of these categories, his candidature was rejected. On this the petitioner sought information of the marks under the Right to Information Act and he was informed that he was in the select list and the cut off marks for general category candidate for the post of Naib Tehsildar was 242 whereas the marks obtained by the petitioner was 245. The last candidate who has been selected is also before this court and is presently being represented by Mr. Arvind Vashisth.
(3.) FROM the records which have been filed before this Court particularly letter dated 8.8.2011 which is a communication between Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand and Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, it reveals that the State Government has replied to certain clarifications of the Public Service Commission. The query of the State Public Service Commission on this aspect, which is presently before this Court, was that how can a mandatory condition of registration with the State Employment Exchange can be fulfilled by such persons who are already in employment either with the State Government/semi State Government or private institution and if such condition is imposed many of the candidates would be deprived from appearing in the selection process. To this query, the State Government replied that such persons who are already an employee under the Government Services and are desirous to appear or apply for class III posts in the State Government, for them the mandatory condition for registration with the State Employment Exchange will not be required. In other words, such employees working under the State Government were exempted from the said mandatory condition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.