GOKUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-48
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 08,2013

GOKUL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

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 petitioner in the matter of appointment as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner further sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner was successful in written examination and it is undisputed fact that the petitioner was selected in the test, however, his appointment was denied as he does not possess the computer certificate issued by any institute recognized by the State or Govt. Department. It is the case of the writ petitioner that there is no recognized institute who undertakes the computer course and issue certificate. Further case of the petitioner is that there are other candidates who without producing any certificate issued by the recognized institute, have been appointed whereas the petitioner has been left out.
(3.) 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. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.