KARTIK KATWAL Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with non-recommendation of his name for appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) with respondent No.1-Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs:

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter, 'Commission') vide advertisement No. 31-1/2021 dtd. 8/4/2021, invited online applications from eligible candidates for the different categories of posts, including 6 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) under post code 906 in the pay scale of Rs.10300.0034800+3800 grade pay. Out of 6 posts, 4 were under General (Unreserved) category and 2 posts were under Economically Weaker Ss. . Last date for submission of online application was 10/4/2022 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner alongwith others applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on contract basis and he was allotted roll number 906000233 for appearing in the written test. To shortlist the candidates, who had applied for the post in question, respondent No.2 conducted written examination (objective type) on 5/9/2021, wherein 1500 candidates appeared for screening test. Vide Notification dtd. 11/1/2022, result of the screening test came to be declared and out of 1500 candidates, 21 candidates were shortlisted for further selection process. Since the petitioner alongwith other candidates came to be shortlisted for further selection process i.e. evaluation of documents, he was also called for verification of documents on 27/1/2022. Since the petitioner had obtained 66.50 marks in written test/screening test, he was expecting to secure 15 marks allotted for evaluation process. Though evaluation of the documents was done on 27/1/2022, but final result came to be declared on 27/8/2022 (Annexure P-3), whereby names of the selected candidate were recommended to respondent No.1 for appointment, but since name of the petitioner was no in the list of selected candidates, he made certain enquiries and found that his candidature has been rejected on the ground that he did not have requisite qualification to participate in the selection process for the post in question. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court, in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above.

(3.) Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, vehemently argued that once documents of the petitioner were accepted after scrutiny and he was permitted to participate in the written examination, there was no occasion, if any, for respondent No.2 to declare him unsuccessful subsequently, on account of his not being eligible. He submitted that inasmuch as 3048 applications were received by respondent No.2 qua the post in question and out of same, 2400 applications were accepted. He submitted that since the petitioner was found eligible, he was not only permitted to participate in the written examination but was also permitted to appear for evaluation of documents. While referring to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules qua the post in question, Mr. Bhushan, argued that a person, holding higher educational qualification has been held to be ineligible for the post where lower qualification is prescribed. He submitted that the petitioner having advanced qualification in the field of civil engineering was more deserving to be appointed against the post in question as such, action of respondent No.2 in not recommending name of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that qua the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), with same Recruitment and Promotion Rules, even degree holders have been considered for appointment, as such, respondents cannot adopt different yardstick in the case of the petitioner. To substantiate his aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Puneet Sharma and others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another etc. 2021 (5) Scale 468,