Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan & Ors

3. We may notice the bare essential facts necessary for the determination of the controversy involved in these appeals .

4. The respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on 10th August, 2006 bearing advertisement No.6/2006, announcing its intention to hold the preliminary examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2006 for screening candidates for the Main Examination for recruitment to various posts educated in the advertisement.

5. Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation being P.I.L. No.61/2006 was filed in the High Court by Order dated 13th March, 2007. The High Court by an interim order directed respondent No.3 not to conduct any examination during the pendency of the petition. By order dated 13th March, 2007, the High Court directed respondent No.3 to make a fresh advertisement on the basis of the requisitions to be received from the Government of Assam (respondent No.2) incorporating reservation of 3% for persons with disabilities.

documents in the office of the Commission or in the examination hall before the commencement of the preliminary examination. Respondent No.1 had been certified by the District Medical Board, Dhubri, to be physically disabled to the extent of 50% on 21st January, 2004. On the basis of this certificate, respondent No.1 was issued an identity card by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri on 18th February, 2004 which specified his disability to be Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50%.

The Commission, respondent No. 3, published the list of selected candidates on 15th June, 2009. The name of respondent No.1 did not appear in the said list. In fact, the appellant was shown to have been selected for appointment in the Assam Public Service Commission as a physically handicapped candidate.

arbitrarily rejected, even though, he had scored more marks than appellant in the examination. It appears that respondent No. 1 had also reiterated that his claim for being considered in the Locomotor Disability category, was duly supported by the necessary documents, i.e., certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Dhubri dated 21st January, 2004 and the identity card issued by the District Social Welfare Officer.

13. It would be relevant to notice here that the select list dated 15th June, 2009 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2755 of 2009 and other connected cases. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the matter back to respondent No.3 to take a fresh decision and publish a revised list. The reservation in the category of Locomotor Disability was not the issue before the Court

14. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 67 of 2010 seeking a direction to include his name in the fresh list to be issued by the respondent No.3, Commission. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court being premature on 7th January, 2010. Thereafter, on 5th February, 2010, the Commission published a revised list, wherein name of respondent No. 1 was again not included in the list of candidates selected for the appointment.

not been submitted by the respondent No. 1 within the prescribed time. On 14th March, 2010, the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed. A direction was issued to respondent No.3 to reconsider the matter afresh based on the identity card submitted on 10th December, 2009. We may notice here that this direction had been issued by the High Court in spite of the categoric assertion made by the respondent No.3 that the candidature of the respondent No. 1 had been rejected on the basis of the resolution dated 8th January, 2010. In its meeting dated 8th January, 2010, respondent No.3 had resolved that respondent No. 1 did not submit the identity card along with the form. This was vital to support the claim of respondent No.1 to be considered for the post reserved for the candidates having Locomotor Disability. Therefore, his candidature was rejected for non-fulfillment of an essential condition. However, pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 4th March, 2010, respondent No.3 in its meeting held on 21st May, 2010 again thoroughly examined the matter relating to the entitlement of respondent No. 1 for final selection as a

Upon a thorough scrutiny and re-examination of the facts and the material on record, the claim of respondent No. 1 was not accepted. The name of appellant was duly reiterated as the candidate selected for appointment.

along with the application earlier but sent subsequently by the candidates will not be entertained. Thus candidates must ensure that the application form is properly filled in and is accompanied by all the relevant documents."

respondent No.3 again illegally rejected his candidatures.

He, therefore, challenged the selection of the appellant.

Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is

Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

30. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in concluding that the respondent No.3 had not treated the condition with regard to the submission of the certificate along with the application or before appearing in the preliminary examination, as mandatory. The aforesaid finding, in our opinion, is contrary to the record. In its resolution dated 21st May, 2010, the Commission has recorded the following conclusions:-

32. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.950 of 2010 and impugned judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.3382 of 2010 of the High Court are set aside.

September 28, 2011.