CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 387 of 2019 dated 6.3.2019. The appellant herein filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to consider the claim of the petitioner for selection to the post of Lecturer in English against the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes, and to permit him to participate in the remaining selection process i.e. verification of documents and the interview scheduled to be held from 28.2.2019 onwards; and a writ of mandamus commanding the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to allow the petitioner to make necessary corrections in the application form with respect to his category of reservation, or to make such correction on the basis of the representation moved by him.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an advertisement was issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 4.9.2018 inviting applications, among others, for the post of Lecturer in English in various Government Inter-Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is, admittedly, a member of the Scheduled Castes and he paid the fee, prescribed for Scheduled Caste candidates, of Rs. 60/- along with the application form. In response to the query in the application form, as to whether he wanted to claim the benefit of reservation Category/Sub Category, the petitioner answered in the negative. The admit card, issued to the petitioner, recorded his category as "unreserved". On receipt of the Admit Card, the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.12.2018, informing the authorities concerned that he had erroneously answered the column, as to whether he desired to claim the benefit of reservation, in the negative; and his mistake may be condoned, and he be permitted to correct the error in the application form. The fact, however, remains that the Commission did not accede to his request. In the ensuing preliminary examination, the petitioner secured 111 marks, which is 0.5 marks more than the cut-off marks of 110.5 prescribed for candidates from the Scheduled Castes category.

(3.) On the ground that he was illegally treated as a general category candidate, and was erroneously held ineligible to participate in the interview, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that, since he was a member of the Scheduled Castes, the mistake made by him in the application form should not result in his being denied his right to be considered for appointment to posts reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes.