SHIV VINAYAK TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri A.K.Singh and Sri V.K.Singh, Mrs. Darshana Vatsa, Sri S.K.Chaubey, Sri V.K.Rai, Sri V.K.Pandey, Sri Sanjiv Singh, Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi and Sri Upendra Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.N.Singh, the learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission.

(2.) This group of petitions raises a common question and are being decided together. The fact, as culled out from the assertions made in the writ petitions, counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit is, that the petitioners hold a valid degree of Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS). An advertisement No.1 of 2013 -14, dated 24.9.2013 was issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) pursuant to a direction from the State Government to fill up 177 posts of Homeopathic Medical Officer in which 23 posts were reserved for Other Backward Classes, 41 posts for Scheduled Caste category and 113 posts for unreserved category. Pursuant to this advertisement, 5577 candidates applied, which was more than 20 times the number of seats offered. Paragraph 7 of the general instructions contemplated that in case a large number of applications are received, the Commission may hold a screening test in order to weed out the candidates. Based on this instruction, the Commission issued a resolution dated 4.7.2014 for holding a screening test. This decision of the Commission was approved by the State Government on 3.9.2014. The State Government further directed the Commission to prepare a syllabus, which was done and thereafter approved by the State Government on 2.1.2015. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued on 24.2.2015 intimating the candidates that a screening test would be held in which objective types question would be required to be answered carrying 150 marks. The screening test was eventually held on 19.4.2015 and a combined merit list was prepared. Subsequently, a decision was taken by the Examination Controller on 8.6.2015 to prepare a merit list in accordance with the resolutions dated 31.12.2012 and 30.8.2013 . This decision was approved by the Secretary of the Commission on 9.6.2015. The resolution dated 31.12.2012 of the Commission indicates that a merit list is required to be prepared category wise and thereafter candidates are to be called in the ratio of 1:8, i.e., 8 candidates for one post for verification of the documents, and thereafter, candidates would be called for interview in the ratio of 1:3, i.e., 3 candidates for one post. Based on the approval by the Secretary on 9.6.2015, a press communique dated 21.7.2015 was issued intimating that candidates in the ratio of 1:8 are being called as per the merit list for verification of their testimonials and other documents and thereafter candidates in the ratio of 1:3 would be called for interview. Subsequently on 6.4.2016 another communique was issued by the Commission calling the candidates in the ratio of 1:3 on various dates for interview.

(3.) The petitioners, being aggrieved by this communique dated 6.4.2016, have filed these writ petitions contending that they were successful in the screening test, but, were not called for interview and that the candidates having lesser marks were called for interview. The petitioners further contended that once a screening is done in the ratio of 1:8, no further short listing could be done in the ratio 1:3, in view of Rule 29(iii) and Rule 52 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules 2011 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 2011) read with Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment through Public Service Commission Preliminary Examinations Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1986). The petitioners urged that the communique dated 6.4.2016 is arbitrary and should be quashed and that all candidates who have passed the screening test should be called for interview. In the alternative, the candidates qualifying the screening test should be called in the ratio of 1:8.