(1.) Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued advertisement on 04.12.2011, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professors in various Government Degree/Post Graduate Colleges within the State of Uttarakhand. Total 272 posts of Assistant Professors were advertised in different subjects, including (B.Sc. Home Science). Only one vacancy was notified for the post of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science). Petitioner applied for the said post. Upon shortlisting, the Commission called 36 candidates for interview against one unreserved post of Assistant Professor (B.Sc. Home Science). Petitioner was also called for interview.
(2.) Two separate interview board were constituted for interviewing 36 candidates. One interview board was headed by Dr. Chhaya Shukla, whereas another interview board was headed by Professor Manjula Rana. Each board consisted of one Chairman with three subject experts. After interviewing the candidates, the result was kept in sealed cover. On 24.02.2014, the Commission received a complaint from one Shri Shyam Lal, an alleged RTI Activists, SIDCUL, Haridwar, in which he has alleged that one interview board was headed by Dr. Chhaya Shukla, who is relative of Mr. Alok Pandey, ADM, Haridwar and the petitioner is relative of Mr. Alok Pandey. The petitioner was a candidate in the said board and on the persuasion of Dr. Chhaya Shukla-Chairman of the board; the petitioner was awarded 74 marks. Copy of the said complaint was also addressed to His Excellency the Governor, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Chief Minister of Uttarakhand and all the members of the Commission. On receiving the complaint, confidential report was sought from Dr. Chhaya Shukla, Chairman of said board and other members of the interview board. The Chairman Dr. Chhaya Shukla and other member of the board submitted their reply informing that the marks of the candidates were awarded by the interview board by way of consensus, neither persuasion was done, nor anyone was pressurized and marks were awarded as per the performance of the candidates. None of them gave any clarification in respect of awarding 74 marks to the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Commission on 24th June, 2014 and the Commission was of the unanimous view that the allegation is baseless and false. But, since in the complaint, it was pointed out that the Chairman of the interview board persuaded other members of the interview board for awarding 74 marks to the petitioner, and since the same was not denied in the clarification given by the members, the Commission resolved that since in the complaint the sanctity and reliability of the interview held on 13th January, 2014 has been confronted and it has been alleged against the interview board that the marks have been awarded to a particular candidate, which was not refuted by the Chairman of the interview board or by the subject experts, therefore, in order to maintain the sanctity and confidentiality of the process of interview and in order to maintain the dignity of the Commission intact, result of the interview examination, held for the subject in question, on 13th and 14th January, 2014, be cancelled even before its finalization. It was also resolved by the Commission that interview of the subject shall be conducted afresh. English translation of the resolution (as supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner) is being reproduced below:
(3.) The said result was signed by the Chairman of the said board and other six members of the board. Thus, the decision was taken by the Chairman and all the members of the Commission. Thereafter, result of interview was cancelled and a decision was taken for conducting fresh interview and, accordingly, a fresh interview was conducted. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court and filed writ petitioner for the following reliefs:-