(1.) The validity of the selection process, undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.08.2017, is under challenge both in WPSB No. 78 of 2019 and WPSB No. 82 of 2019.
(2.) Elaborate submissions were made by Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No.78 of 2019, Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No.82 of 201, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand State Public Service Commission, Mr. R. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 9 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.78 of 2019, and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.82 of 2019. It is convenient to examine the rival submissions, urged by learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel on either side, under different heads.
(3.) In the affidavit, filed in support of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2019, the petitioner has detailed her achievements, both academic and otherwise, to contend that she was more meritorious than respondent nos. 6 to 9 in all aspects. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the entire selection process stood vitiated as the petitioner's merit was ignored, and the Interview Committee failed to properly assess the relative merits of the candidates called for interview. While fairly stating that this Court would not take upon itself the task of making a comparative assessment of the relative merits of the eligible candidates, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Commission was obligated to show, at least prima facie, that a proper assessment of the relative merits, of the candidates called for interview, was undertaken; despite the petitioner having detailed her achievements in the writ affidavit, and though she had pointed out therein that her academic and other qualifications were far superior to that of respondent nos.6 to 9, the counter- affidavit filed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission does not state why the petitioner was found less meritorious than respondent nos.6 to 9; and this clearly shows that the interview board had failed to make a proper assessment of the relative merits of the candidates called for interview, which would necessitate the entire selection process being declared as vitiated.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN