DEEPTI SHUKLA Vs. CHHATTISGARH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order/letter dated 14.8.2008 issued by the respondents whereby candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon has been rejected on the ground that he had not annexed the registration certificate along with her application.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that advertisement dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-2) was published for the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon in the department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the said post being an un-reserved candidate. Application of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that she had not attached the registration certificate of Veterinary Council of India along with the application form.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents submits that filing of registration certificate of the council was mandatory in order to ascertain the eligibility of the candidate for the purpose of processing the candidature and participation in the interview. He submits that it is a question of common knowledge that if a candidate is not registered with the Council under the Act of 1984, he/she would not be eligible even to participate in the examination. He submits that all the clauses of the advertisement have to be read together and thus reading clauses 4 and 10 together makes it clear that filing of the registration certificate was mandatory even if it was not specifically mentioned in the advertisement. He submits that in column 4, essential qualification has been mentioned and according to which the candidate is required to have the degree of B.V.Sc. and Animal Husbandry from Indian or Foreign university apart from having registration under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984. He submits that as per clause X of the advertisement, it has been clarified as to what documents are to be filed along with the application and in the absence of such documents; application of the candidate is liable to be rejected. According to him, as per clause 10.b of the advertisement a candidate was required to file the proof of educational qualification, degree, PG degree and the experience certificate etc. and the word etc." would also include the filing of registration certificate, and as in the case in hand, no such document was filed, her candidature was rightly rejected because eligibility of the petitioner could not have been ascertained on the basis of the documents enclosed with the application form. In support of his arguments he also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5699. Counsel for the intervener submits that the intervener has been placed at S.No. 1 in the wait list and on account of the interim order, the appointment order has not been given to her as the result of the petitioner has not been declared and as one post is blocked on account of the interim order passed by this Court.