IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 79 of 2007 (S/S) Smt. Deepika Bisht W/o Shri Gokul Singh Bisht R/o Village Chhani, P.O. Barechhnia, District Almora. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Ministry of Education, Dehradun. 2. Director of School Education Uttaranchal, Mayur Vihar, Sahashtra Dhara Road, Dehradun. 3. Joint Director School Education Kumaun Division, Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to include the marks obtained by the petitioner in her B.Ed. degree, in assessing her merit, and she may be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Science). Also, a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought quashing the order 2 dated 22.03.2007, passed by respondent No. 2, rejecting the application of the petitioner. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit, on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is domicile of Uttarakhand. She passed her M.Sc. in Botany in the year 2003 from Kumaon University, securing first Division. She did her B.Ed. in the year 2006, from University of Kashmir, Srinagar. Result of said course was declared on 06.09.2006. Meanwhile, on 11.08.2006, an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagaran’, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teachers. A Corrigendum was issued on 02.09.2006, by the respondent authorities clarifying that the candidates who have obtained the degree of B.Ed. from University of Jammu and Kashmir may also apply for the post of Assistant Teacher. As such, according to the petition, she was fully qualified for the post of Assistant teacher (Science) for which selection was to take place in pursuance to the advertisement, mentioned above. The petitioner’s case is that as per the conditions in the advertisement, a candidate was required to have completed essential qualifications, including B.Ed. on 8th of September 2006 i.e. the last date of submission of application. It is stated that due to incessant rain in Kashmir, the petitioner could not obtain the marksheet 3 from the University. A provisional certificate and marksheet of B.Ed. could be secured by the petitioner only on 14.10.2006. Meanwhile, she had submitted an affidavit to the respondent authorities that her result of B.Ed. is out and she has been declared successful. It is stated in the writ petition that the candidate belonging to general category were selected, who had secured 96 quality point marks in the merit, while that of the petitioner was 99.24 quality point marks. She made a representation to the respondent authorities, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 22.03.2007. 4) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is admitted that in pursuance to the advertisement in August 2006, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science), L.T. Grade, female branch. However, no marksheet or certificate relating to clearance of B.Ed. examination were submitted by the petitioner with the application, nor any provisional degree was filed with the application, as such, her candidature was rejected. In her application she did not even mention the training qualification. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to condition No. (iv) mentioned in the advertisement dated 7th of August 2006, which reads as under: “(iv) foKfIr izdkf’kr gksus dh frfFk ls iwoZ vH;FkhZ ds ikl rnlEcU/kh 'kSf{kd@izf’k{k.k ifj{kkvksa dh vadrkfydk miyC/k 4 gksaA ;fn mDr 'kSf{kd ,ao izf’k{k.k ijh{kkvksa ds izek.k Ik= izkIr gks pqdsa gksa] rks mudh izfrfyfi Hkh miyC/k djkuh gksxhA izek.k Ik= izkIr u gksus dh n’kk esa lEcfU/kr laLFkk@fo’ofo|ky; }kjk iznRr vkSicfU/kd (Provisional) izek.k Ik= dh izfrfyfi miyC/k djk;h tkuh vfuok;Z gSaA” He further drew attention of this Court to corrigendum issued on 22.08.2006. Para 2 of said corrigendum reads as under: “(iii) vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu djus dh frfFk ls iwoZ foKfIr ds izLrj 5 esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd ,ao izf’k{k.k vgZrk;sa ¼ch0,M0@,y0Vh0 vkfn½ izkIr dj yh x;h gksa] izf’k{k.k ikB~;dze jk"Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kkifj"kn~ ¼N.C.T.E.½ ls ekU;rk izkIr gksuk vfuok;Z gS] ftls jk"Vªh; v/;kid f’k{kkifj"kn~ ¼N.C.T.E.½ dh osclkbV www.ncte-in.org ij ns[kk tk ldrk gSA” On its basis, it is argued that, since, the petitioner’s result had been declared on 6th of September 2006 i.e. two days before the last date of submission of application, which was available on the NET, only for the reason that the petitioner did not hold marksheet or provisional certificate, her candidature could not have been rejected. 6) I have gone through the original advertisement dated 07.08.2006 (copy of which is annexed as Annexure –2 to the writ petition), and also the 5 corrigendum dated 22.08.2006 (copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition). By the aforesaid corrigendum, condition No. (iii) of Para 2 of the original advertisement has been rectified, not the condition (iv) of Para 2 of said advertisement. In condition No. (iii) of Para 2, initially, the candidate was required to possess the qualifications before the date of advertisement, while in clause (iv) of Para 2, it was provided that on the date of making an application for the post, a candidate must have possessed marksheet of the qualifications and certificates. If certificate is not received from the University, a provisional certificate must have been secured and filed with the application. There is no change in condition No. (iv). It is only the condition No. (iii), which after the corrigendum issued, provided that the candidate must have possessed the qualifications on or before the date of making an application. This corrigendum makes condition No. (iii) in consonance with condition No. (iv), and does not dilute the condition No. (iv), to file copy of marksheet or provisional certificate with the application. Since, it was one of the essential conditions to file the copy of provisional certificate / marksheet with the application, which the present petitioner admittedly did not do, it cannot be said that the respondents have wrongly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. 7) No doubt, the candidate appears to be a meritorious person, as she held a first class degree in 6 M.Sc. in Botany. It is also unfortunate that she could not obtain her degree in time from Jammu and Kashmir, but this Court cannot make an exception for that reason, as the conditions mentioned in the advertisement were equally applicable to all the candidates. If the petition is allowed as an exceptional case, others may also raise their heads for different other reasons. 8) In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief, claimed by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 20, 2009. H. Negi 7