IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2745 of 2011 alongwith CWP No. 4500 of 2011 and CWP No. 4962 of 2011. Date of Decision : August 1, 2011 1. CWP No. 2745 of 2011 Tara Devi versus H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board and another. 2. CWP No. 4500 of 2011 Seema versus Secretary, H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board and another. 3. CWP No. 4962 of 2011 Mamta Devi versus H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board and another. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No. 2745 of 2011. Mr. S. D. Gill, Advocate, in CWP No. 4500 of 2011. Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, in CWP No. 4962 of 2011. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, and Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocates, for Subordinate Service Selection Board. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Ravinder Thakur, CGSC, for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 2745 of 2011 and for respondent No. 2 in CWP No. 4962 of 2011. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners are aggrieved since their application forms for appointment to the post of Art and Craft Teacher have been rejected. It is seen from the reply that application forms have been 2 rejected on two counts, (i) the same have been received belatedly and (ii) the petitioners had not shown that they fulfilled the requisite qualification. As far as the delay is concerned we have already held by a separate judgment today in CWPIL No. 27 of 2011 that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, the applications should be deemed to have been received in time. Therefore, it is held that the rejection of the cases of the petitioners in these cases on account of delay is not proper, in the fact situation as dealt with in detail in common judgment referred to above. 2. As far as qualification is concerned the prescribed qualification is Diploma in Art and Craft from an institute recognized by the H.P. Government or equivalent. Of course as per old Rules the candidate need only be Matric with full subjects and as per the amended Rules the candidate should be 10+2 with 50% marks. Service Selection Board has produced along with reply the standard form application. There are following five columns filled up in the matter of qualification. 13. Educational Qualification (From Matriculation onwards, including professional/Technical/Essential Qualification) Sr. No. Year Name of Examination passed Name of Board/ University Name of the Institute Subjects passed Percentage 1. Matric 2. + 2 3. B.A/ B.Sc. 4. 5. 3. According to the petitioners since what is indicated in the application form is Matric, +2 and B./B.Sc., they have filled up 3 only what is indicated in the form and according to them certificate regarding qualification of Art and Craft need to have been produced at the time of the test or interview. It is seen from the notification that the candidates were not required to produce any certificate, either photostat or otherwise along with the application. Even in the standard form prescribed and as produced by the Board shows that no enclosures are to be attached with the application form. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the absence of any indication as to their qualification in the printed form they were under the impression that the same had to be produced only at the time of the interview for verification, as stated in the reply affidavit in CWP No. 4500/2011 at para 9 which reads as follows:- “9. That in reply to this para it is submitted that in view of the submission,ade in para 7 above that no document is required to be attached by the candidate(s) while applying for the post(s) and the only statement furnished by the candidate in his/her application form is relied upon. It is further submitted that all the documents/testimonies are checked at the time of personal interview. Hence the plea of the petitioner that the respondent has not taken into the consideration of documents enclosed with the application form is not based on the facts and she made false allegation in her statement in this para. More over as alleged by the petitioner that she had duly filled the application form diligently is totally wrong which is clear from the perusal of column no. 13 of her application form. Had the petitioner filled the essential educational qualification information for the post of Art & Craft in 4 specific column i.e. column No. 13 of her application form, her candidature might had been considered. Hence the capability of the petitioner can be adjudged from her application form (annexure R/I).” 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Service Selection Board, column No. 4 and 5 are left blank for the candidates to fill up the examinations they have passed which are relevant for the posts applied for. We also do not find any such specific instruction in the notification. The Service Selection Board could have given an indication that the blank columns are provided for the applicants to fill up their educational qualifications and for furnishing particulars as far as the posts which are applied for. No doubt the candidates should have had the wisdom to discern that in having provided blank columns in standard application forms. Learned counsel for the Board by inviting reference to para 13 of the printed application form submit that it is clearly stated therein that educational qualification from Matric onwards including profession/technical/educational qualification should have been filled up by the candidate. No doubt there is some indication but there is no specific instruction to that effect, along with other general instructions. In order to avoid any ambiguity in future it should be mentioned that blank columns are to be filled in by the candidate concerned with particulars for the post applied for. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, as referred to above, there will be a direction to the Board to provide an opportunity to the 5 candidates to cure the defects, in case the applicants are otherwise qualified for the post. The applicants shall personally present themselves on 6.8.2011 at 11.00 a.m. before the First Respondent who shall give an opportunity to the petitioners to cure the defects. Consequential action shall accordingly follow. 5. Petitions stand disposed of as above, so also the pending applications, if any. A duly authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 1, 2011 (PK/C)