%, ^ c ^L\ '.. o o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WKIT PETITION N0.2-c^ OF 2004 PETITIONER: .^^ ..-^ ->o^-'' ^'^- .o7 a^- <.^^ ^•~^\^ -<?y^" <--^\/' ^- ^ •^^ R^PONDENT : Ku Sw^ta Singh , D/0. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Aged about 2l^years, R/0. Bilaspur , District Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission , through its Secretary , Raipur, District : Raipur, ( Chhattisgarh ) . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OF JUDICATURE AT VVnt Petition No.2084 of 20Q4 Ku. Shweta Singh - V.ersys - Chhattisgarh Public Serv.ce Comm'ssion ^ r-, ,th POST FOR ORDER ON 24" AUGUST, 2004 .„/'&——- Sd)- L.C. Bhadoo Judge HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No.2084of2004 Ku. Shweta Singh - Versus - Chhattisgarh Public Ser/ice Commission Present: - Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Mr. Y.C. Sharma Advocate: Advooate: For the petitioner. For respondent. sw ORDER (Passea on 24'" August, 2004) L.C. BHADOO, J. By this writ petition flled under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the decision ofrespondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commissionwhereby her request to accept her mark sheet passing graduatidnSxamination and to allow her to appear in the Civil|Services Main Examination, whlch was schedulecf to commence on 26-7-2004, was rejected. On fliing of this petitton, the petitioner was ailowed to appear in the main examination vide interim order dated 23rd Ju!y 2004, (2) Brief facts leading to filing of this writfpetition are that respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 9-7-2003 published in 'Rpjgar Aur Niyojan' jnviting applteations from tHe candidates who desirous to appear in the Civil Services Examination 2003 forlthel various posts. As per the scheme of the examination, the examination wasl consisting ^of two •successive stages (i) ^)i Preiiminary Examination (Obijectn<e: Type) for the selection of candidates fbr the Main Examiriation and (b) Mai|n Examination (Written and Ihterview) for theifinal selsction of candidates forjtKei various servicesand posts mentioned in th^said advertisement. 5ub-claysej(b) of Rule 5 of said advertisement prescribes rninimum edycational quaiificatipni^isi per this sub-clause a candidate was requited to hold a degree 6f ariy of |:h^ Universities incorporated iby an Act crffflie^ pentra! or Statell-egiSlatureJnlrjdiS and further as per the note appended toAh&t'sub-clause even such candid^t^ :1!111 K<t were eligibte to appear in theexamination who hadappeared at an examination the passing of which would render them educationally quaiified for the Commission's examination, but were not informed of the results, even the candidates intending to appear at such a qualifying examination were etigible for admission to the Preliminary Examination. However, the candidatesdeclared qualified by the Commission for taking the State Services (Main) Examination were required to produce proof pf passing the requisite examination with their application forthe Main Examination. (3) The petitioner appeared in fhe B.A. final examination which was qualilying examination to appear in the said Ciyil Services examination. Shes also applied for the Civil Services examination in pursuance of the said advertisement. She was suceessful in the Preliminary Examination and beeame eligible to appear in the main examination. The Gommission declared the result of the Preliminary Examinationoh 2-4-2004 and invited applications for fhe main examination up to 5-5-2004. However.the samewas extended up to 15-6-20Q4 vide Annexure-P/1, but by thattime the result of B.A. examinaSion in which the petitioner appeared could not be declared. The petitioner within the stipulated time fi!led the form for main examination and submitted in the respondent's office. Respondent fixed the scheduls fbr the main examination commencing from 26* July 2004. The result of B.A. Final examinationofthepetitionerwas delayed on account of the Parliament Elections, but somehow the result of BA.Finat examination of the petitioner was declaredon 13-7-2004 in which she was deciared successful. She secured 59.78% aggregatemarks in that examination. After obtaining the copy of marksheet on16-7-2004, on the same day she approached one of the members of the respondent Commissioh. On 20 Juiy 2004, she made a prayer before the Chairman ofrespondent Commission, but : her request was turned down on the ground that she could notfiie the mark sheet | of the graduation examination along with the application for tHe Givil Services Main examinationwithintheprescribed time. (4) The further case of the petitioner^ is that filing of proof of B.A. | examinatioh i.e. mark sheet with the applieation for main examinatipn was not a | mandatory condition as per the advertisement, therefore, the action of . respondent was arbitrary andjillegal, as the petitioner eould not submit mark j sheet duato unavoidablecircurnslanees andwtijGh]wereinotwithin the petitioner. As soonas the;result,was decletr^dSisfoj'e the commencemenfof j imain examination, the petitiortW^ppijoacHe3jt|||j3|^m!|siQn;wjtH;m^ Slroiyajfj^ :qualify!ng::examlnation,-:therefG^,:thel';^itielj|^jliajJr^||feste^ ,i"i:ii ;;,1 1;}11 13 IIw, writ of mandamus for allowing her to appear ih the examination and for passing anyappropriateorder. - (5) Return has been filed on behalf ofrespondentinwhich it has been mentioned that as per the advertisement all candidates who were declared qualified by the Commissipn f6r taking the State Services (Maih) Examination were required to produce proofof passing the reqyisite examination with their application for mainexamihation and the cut off date for sueh applications was 15-6-2004. As the petitioner had failed to produee the proof of her passing fh$ requisite examination with the application for main examination, therefore, she could not have been issued admissiori card. It was very essential; for e Commission to fix a cut off date for aecepting the applications from the candidates for ascertaining the actual I'lumber of candidates appearing in examination for conduetioriiof e>am in ani'orgaoized raanner. The petitioner had Brought proofbf her passing fbe reqyisit6ieixamihationone mpn^^ of the last date; tl-ierefGra,! it viras rightly refused to ac?ept ;her request. it has; been prayed that by the cut off date the petitionerwas not able to file mark sheet of the qualifying examination,!therefbre, the petitipn be dismissed. , (6) Ihaveheardlearnsdcounselfbrtheparties. i (7) Counsel forthe petitioner argyed thatas per the eligibility criteriai the candidates who had lappeared or intending to appear in the qualifyingi examination were entitied to appear in the Preliminary Examination, accQrdihgly! the petitioner appeared inlthe Preliminary^Examinationandwas successful in the| said Examinatidn. At the'same time,the petitioner had also appeared in |the| qualifying examination, but!the result could.not be declared in time i.e. before|tKei cut off date for submitting the applicatibn fcr main:examination pn acrountofi certain difficulties with the Uraversity due toiPaFNamerit Eteetions a^ purp6sethepetitionervraslnotresponsjb|e.H^ere^snofaultontheF!artof|tKe! petitioner. He further argusd tliat before^cqmmencement pftheexaminationii.e.i 28-7-2004^ result6fthequalifyingexaminal|onw^ ~ 'l l^:l;j -i Thepetitionerapproached;theCQmmissiori|pn16l''Ju]y 20(34 fc'raceeptanceofi her mark sheet and issuanGe ef admissionifiarcl. He fuftherSubmitted;tKat(thei; petitioner is a meritonoys!<ancli^ateariy;iiStHeAtii^etisn!Ot^|j^^ i,r?.];^!:^;.;.;: !^.;:.:;:-^i']:;:|':i.:.,t:^^ be put tp unneceSsary hgFyshjpjan&|inBR|ra|ile^lgss^^^ Moreoyer.there was no|mandat6^con||itKtniifi^dl|tMatjrj.(ase will not be able fe furnishythejl!, marlffistiie^tSi their applicatiorr forms fon mainie;@|ninjaBsi'||| |t(ji|ciual|@JiBgj:iexamJnatie!n|, li|jtiQ|tei;^sCSp^ctlon !any||ei|^g| ii't iiii,a ';fsi^^^^®^^^^^^:^: :®§^^^^S ^S^S'K^S^^ SS8S^^SS^sMss^^^^K '•: '^^s-'ss^ »:» witl be rejected outrightly. He further argued that even without mark sheet of qualifying examination respondent accepfed the application of the petitioner for main examination. There was no mandatory condition in the said advertisement that after filing of the application, any other document in supportof the application will n'ot be accepted aftercutoff date. Relying on the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in the. matter of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another V. Chander Shekher and another reportedin 1993SUpp (2) Supreme Court Cases 611, counsel forthe petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered bythesaiddeCisionandthepetitiQn deservesto beallowed. (8) On the other hand, counsel for respondent argyed that as per the eligibilitycriteria the petitionerwas required to submit the proof of passing ofthe qualifying examination alongwiththe applicationformainexaminatiOn. The cut off date for filing the application for main examinatipnwas 15-6-2004, therefore, after passing ofone month'stime, marksheet of the qualifying examinationcould not have been accepted. Therefore, action of resppndent was correct. In support of his argumerits he reljed upon adecision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter 6f State of Rajasthan V. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt reported in AIR 1998 SUPREMECOURTS1. (9) In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, itwilf be profitable to reproduce the relevant provision regarding eligibility criteria. Eligibility conditions: (b) Minimum educational qualjfication- A candidate must hold a degree ofany of the Universities incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legisiature in India or other Educational Institution established by an Act.of Parliament or deciared to be deemed as a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Cpmmission' Act, 1956 or possess an equivalent qualifiCation. Note-1 Candidates who have iapDeared at an examination the passing ofwhich^^uld rei'iderUliem educationally quaiified for ttie^ commission's examination but;have riot begn jnfbrmed oflhe resultsl asalsothecandiclateswh6int:ehct:tti'aBDeaTiatsUGhla| : i aualiMna exammatiori will; alsb!i;ibe ygligiNe?j ferl ;.;]i^;^l:?<"i:i:^gf;l;:JS'.?.';i ; .;l./i:.:i;:'' • admissiort ^to_;tl'J!el.:Prelimin^NfS"!ExsiminStiOn.E.' Alli- /-' t'.-';.'! ['t: ri3 III•^!. !Kj; ....U-.J_.J_ candidates who are declared qualified by the Commission for taking the State Services (Main) Examination will be required to produce proof of passing the requisite examination with their application for the Main Examination. Note-1 of the srbove rule envisages that even those candidates who had appeared at an examination the passing of which would render them educationally qualifled for the Commission's examination but had not been informed of the results as also the candidates who intending to appear at such a qualifying examination were eligible for admission to the Preliminary Examination. (10) This rule further envisaged that all the candidates who were declared qualified by the Commission for takirig up the main examination were required to produce proof of passing the requisite examination with their application for the Main Examination. In this provision no mandatory requirement was incorporated i.e. nothing was mentioned in this eligibility criteria that in no circumstances the application for the main examination will be entertained without filing the proof of passing the requisite examination. Moreover, consequences of not filing the proof with application are not mentioned inthis rule. The only condition was that the candidate will be required to prodyce the proof, but the application of the petitioner was accepted without such propf. The result could not be declared on account of certain difficulties faced by the University and there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, even the Commission accepted the application of the petitioner for main examinatibn without proof ofpassing ofthe requisite examination. As soon as the resultwas declared that too before the commencement of the m'ain examination, the petitioner approached the Commission for acceptance of the proof i.e. mark sheet regarding passing ofthe requisiteexamination.lnthisconneetion.thei judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter-of Ashok Kumar Sharma tSupra)| is reievant in-which it is held that: "The appellants were fully qyalifled for being Selected prior to the date of interyjewj By allowing the appellants to appear in intervjew and by |their selection on the basis of their ecimparatiye merits, the recruiting authprity was able ,j^^gef the'ibest ftalents available. It' was certainly;in puBljc interegt that jthe interview was'made as breadil;?ased a^iwas p&ssiibte on the basis of qualification.j ! ^/as iinjilblro: m ; that better eandtdateswho^wer^ti.illyc]ualified;on the J w l^i' "..-t- dates of selection were not rejected.notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had beerrdelayed for no fault oftheirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of interview." in this case also the petitioner's case is onthe better footing forthe reason that in viewof the eHgibility criteria the candidateswere required to file the proof of passing of the requisite examination with the application for main examination. The petitioner even though could not produce the proof along with the apptication, but, in-fact, before starting ofthe examination i.e. 26-7-2004 the petitioner approachedthe Commission on 16-7-2004 with proof of passing of the requisite examination, but her request was turned down. Thespirit behind the above clause was that the candidate ought to have passed the examination before appearing inths mainexamihation. In this rule no mandatory requirement was fixed that application will not be accepted without filing the proof of passing of requisite examinatipn, neither it was mentioned that the application will not be aceepted on any terms without such proof and even the candidates will not be allowed to file the proof after submitting the application. In this case, the Commission accepted the application of the petitioner whieh was submitted within the stipulated time and later on, when the result was declared, the petitioner passed in the qualifying examination, she approached the Commission with the proof of passing of the requisite examination that too before commencement ofthe examination, therefore, lam of the considered opinion that, looking tothe facts and cireumstances ofthe present case, the requitemenf of the eligibility criteria was metwith by the petitioner. (11) Now, coming to the case law cited by the counsel for respondent, the above decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court is distinguishableon facfs. In this case, in the last paragraph ofthe advertisement clause it was.specifically mentioned that "no certificatej or mark sheetwill be aecepted after the receipt of the application form in the office", butin the petitioner's case no such condition was prescribed in the eligibility criteria. Looking to the factsofthe present case, \ it is in public interest thatthe meritorious candidates like the petitioner should not | be deprived from appearing in the main e)iamination on technical grounds. i Moreover, when the petition^r was able to furnish the proof of passing ofthe, requisite examination mueh befdre commencement of the examination, thje j situation was not within the control ofthe petitioner, as per the eligibility criteHa,| the petitioner was eligible to appear in the Preliminary Examination of ttie Civil | '.{ • : ••• :.:;::'?:^ -^ ^ :.;r- . ..:• '.; • •; ,:r i Services Examination, as ^she was ihtending tfi! appear in the qualifSflngj ll':~ili:'!li!EI'! ^StSS !St;3!;M ::.!.3! aai, m ^:^^1 - € examination. She had appeared in the said examination, but unfortunately on account of certain difficulties faced by the University result could not be declared in time, which was not within the control of the petitioner, therefore, for that the petitioner cannot be punished for no fault on her part. Since beginning the intention of the rule was to entertain the application from the candidates awaiting result, therefore, in the given situation, when the result was declared before commencement of the examination, in all fairness and reasonableness respondent ought to have accepted the proof filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition ofthe petitioner deserves to be allowed. (12) In the result, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The jnterim order dated 23-7-2004 whereby the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination is modified. The respondent is directed to declare the result of the petitioner. (13) Parties to bear their owncost. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge J..l-.J-.il-.-