VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE think that the Public Service Commission in the instant case acted in an atrocious manner. The Public Service Commission inserted an advertisement and thereby invited applications from eligible candidates for supplying vacancies in Hindi teaching posts available in Government Post Graduate Colleges/ Degree Colleges. In the advertisement, it stated, amongst others, that the minimum requirement is having a P.hd. within a certain period as mentioned in advertisement or eligibility in National Eligibility Test (N.E.T.). While inserting the advertisement, the Respondent Commission failed to discharge its obligation to mention in the advertisement that in the alternative of having P.hd. within the time as mentioned in the advertisement or N.E.T., a candidate having passed the State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) is also entitled to participate in the selection process for being selected for the posts advertised, inasmuch as, the eligibility of persons to be appointed in those posts should be deemed to have been noted by the Commission, as prescribed by the University Grants Commission. Petitioner passed State Level Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Gujarat in January, 2002. U.G.C. in a communication, contents whereof must be deemed to be within the knowledge of the Commission, declared that persons, who have passed SLET Examinations conducted prior to 1st June, 2002, should be eligible for appointment to posts of Lecturer anywhere in India. U.G.C. subsequently reiterated, which must be deemed to be within the knowledge of the Commission, that persons who have passed SLET examinations prior to 1st June, 2002, need not appear in N.E.T. Examination, which makes it absolutely clear that the Petitioner on the basis of his SLET qualification was eligible to participate in the selection process for being appointed to the advertised post and the Commission most unjustly refused to accept the candidature of the Petitioner. However, inasmuch as, in the advertisement, qualification of SLET was not mentioned and the Petitioner having not represented, while responding to the advertisement, that the SLET qualification held by him should be deemed to be equivalent to N.E.T. examination, we give benefit of doubt to the Commission and hold that rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner by the Commission was not mala fide.

(2.) THAT being the situation, we are unable to grant what the Petitioner seeks in the writ petition. However, Petitioner shall be entitled to the cost of this writ petition assessed at Rs. 10,000/ - to be paid by the Respondent No. 3, within two months from today.