ASHUTOSH GUPTA Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a candidate for the post of Lecturer in Radiotherapy in the Medical Education Department. His eligibility for the post has come under cloud. While he considers himself eligible under the Recruit0ment Rules read with a circular of the Medical Council of India (MCI), respondent No. 2 (Public Service Commission) has found him ineligible and has withheld his result of selection. He accordingly seeks a direction to the Public Service Commission (PSC) to recommend him for appointment and not to re-advertise the post. The record reveals that two posts of Lecturer in Radio-therapy discipline were referred to the PSC as far back as on 22.12.1989. The PSC thereafter issued repeated advertisement notifications in 1990 and 1991 which elicited response from a small number of candidates who were not eligible for one reason or the other. The posts were then lately re- advertised vide notification No. 17-PSC of 1993 dated 17.6.1993 fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 30.7.1993. Besides the academic qualification, experience prescribed, drawn from the Recruitment Rules (SRO- 225/88) was as under:

(2.) Two candidates including the petitioner responded to this notification. They were interviewed on 6.8.1994 and thereafter their result was not declared.

(3.) Resisting this petition, the PSC has filed detailed objections tracing the sequence of events leading to the issuance of notification No. 17-PSC of 1993. It has pointed out that considering the dearth of eligible candidates in the discipline or Radiotherapy and that two posts were lying vacant since 1989, it resolved to call the two candidates including the petitioner, for interview provisionally under Rule 36 of the Commission's (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 with a view to seek relaxation in their teaching experience, if they were found suitable. On 16.8.1994, however, it received a representation from Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed Naqash stating that he had refrained from applying for the post even though he fell short of teaching experience only by one month and that it would be discriminatory to accord relaxation to the candidates who had applied but were deficient in teaching experience. Upon this, the whole matter was considered and it was resolved to re-advertise the posts as two candidates, including the petitioner, had been allowed to provisionally appear in the interview at their own risk and responsibility and as they lacked in teaching experience. It is further submitted that no right accrued to the petitioner by calling him for the interview and the question of his selection did not arise even if the PSC had recommended his case for relaxation of the teaching experience unless the same was sanctioned by the Government.