SANTOSH KUMAR JUYAL Vs. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) AN Advertisement was issued by the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") for filling -up various posts in the Civil Services. The posts could be, broadly, classified with reference to the qualifications specified for the same. Some of the posts required Post Graduation with specialisation. Some of the other posts, which were advertised, required qualification of Graduation in specialised subject. Lastly, there were posts for which the qualification prescribed was Graduation or Post Graduation without any specialisation. The controversy involved in this case, as is evident from the prayers, relates to the posts of Deputy Principal / Senior Lecturer, etc. For the combined posts, the selection procedure involved undergoing the preliminary examination and, thereafter, on being selected, taking of a main examination and, for those, who are found eligible for interview, the holding of an interview. The marks obtained in the main examination and in the interview were to be totalled and a decision was to be made regarding the result.

(3.) THE complaint of the petitioner would, in essence, be as follows: The party respondent secured lesser marks than the petitioner and, yet, he has been declared selected for the post of Deputy Principal / Senior Lecturer. It is the further case of the petitioner that, originally, the Commission had duplicated the roll numbers of the candidates and, therefore, did not comply with the principle of 1:3. That is to say, as per law, 15 times the number of posts had to be permitted to sit for the main examination. The total is 213 posts, for which Graduation or Post Graduation without specialisation was prescribed. Therefore, 3212 candidates had to be permitted to sit for the main examination. Thereafter, the yardstick was from among those, who participated in the main examination, in a ratio of 1:3 for the posts they were to be called for the interview. This meant that, from among those candidates, who sat in the main examination, qua each post, the Commission was to call the candidates in the ratio of 1:3, meaning that, multiplying the number of posts by 3 and such number of the candidates based on merit from top down had to be called for interview. There was no minimum requirement to be fulfilled, by way of minimum marks obtained in the main examination, to be called for interview. It is, in breach of the aforesaid criteria, that candidates were called for the interview by duplication of roll numbers by result declared on 2nd February, 2014. This resulted in litigation and, by a judgment passed in Writ Petition (SB) No. 54 of 2014 (Annexure No. 6), this Court ordered as follows: