Telangana High Court
S. Mahesh vs The Telangana State Public Service ... on 13 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.6536 OF 2021
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in awarding weightage marks of 6 only for the educational qualification acquired by the petitioner by taking the date of publication of results of the academic qualification into consideration as the date of passing the examination instead of the date of appearance of the petitioner in the last of the examinations of the said academic qualification, as illegal, arbitrary, improper and contrary to law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in 2017(2) ALD 736 (DB) and consequently to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the matter of awarding of marks on academic qualification weightage by duly taking into consideration the date of appearance of the petitioner for B.Sc. (Nursing) degree final examination and consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse pursuant to Notification No.57/2017 dt.08.11.2017 and to pass such other order or orders.
W.P.No.6536 of 20212
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the respondents have issued Notification No.57/2017 dt.08.11.2017 for filling up of various posts including the posts of Staff Nurse. The petitioner is qualified and has accordingly appeared for the examination and secured 28.658 marks out of 70 marks excluding weightage marks and he was awarded 7 weightage marks for education qualification and the total marks he secured is 35.658 and was placed at S.No.3116 of the merit list. However, after verification of the certificates, the weightage marks of the petitioner have been reduced to 6 and the total marks he secured have come down to 34.658 and the petitioner has been assigned the rank of 3451 and accordingly he was not considered for selection to the post of Staff Nurse. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had appeared for the final year B.Sc. (Nursing) examination held by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh in the month of November, 2010 and the results were declared on 25.01.2011. It is submitted that initially, the respondents have considered the year of passing of the said examination as November, 2010, but after verification of the certificates, they have taken the year of passing as W.P.No.6536 of 2021 3 2011 and thus reduced 1 mark awarding only 6 marks. He submitted that the petitioner has obtained a clarification from the University as to the date on which he should be considered as having passed the examination, under the Right to Information Act and he has been provided with the information by way of a reply and the said University has clarified that the theory examinations have been held in November, 2010 and after completing the practical examinations in November/December, 2010, the results were declared in January, 2011 and therefore, it is to be taken into consideration that the candidate has passed in November, 2010. It was further clarified that the provisional certificate is valid for 6 months only and after the original degree certificate is issued, the provisional certificate is not valid for any practical purposes. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisional certificate, wherein the date of announcement of results is mentioned, whereas in the original degree certificate, it is mentioned that the petitioner has passed the examination held in November, 2010. Therefore, according to him, the respondents ought not to have considered the provisional certificate, but should have taken the year of passing of the examination as November, 2010 as reflected in the original degree certificate and ought to have awarded W.P.No.6536 of 2021 4 weightage marks accordingly. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.Shivaji Yadav and another Vs. G. Srinivasa Murthy and others 1, wherein, the issue of date of passing of departmental examination for grant of increments or for consideration for promotion to the higher post was considered. While reviewing its earlier order, this Court held that the date on which the candidate appeared for the examination or last of such examinations should be taken to be the date on which the candidate has qualified, irrespective of the date of declaration of the results. In view of the same, he submits that the case of the petitioner should be reconsidered for appointment against the vacancies which are still available by awarding him weightage marks of 7 and assigning him the earlier rank which was 3116.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for TSPSC, however, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and also G.O.Ms.No.166, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Department, dt.09.09.2017 which prescribed the procedure for selection category-wise. Para 4 (IX) of the said G.O. prescribed the procedure and Clause (d) thereof prescribes that the weightage marks will be assigned for each completed 1 2017 (2) ALD 736 (DB) W.P.No.6536 of 2021 5 year of waiting for employment, counting from the year of passing the basic qualifying examination until the date of notification, subject to a maximum of ten (10) marks. According to him, until and unless the results are announced, it cannot be presumed that the candidate has passed the examination and therefore, the weightage marks have been awarded only from the date of declaration of results and it came to be known to the respondents only after verification of the certificates that the petitioner has passed the examination in a particular year. He submitted that the respondents have accordingly revised the merit list and the petitioner's case has been considered in accordance with his merit. Therefore, according to him, the Writ Petition lacks merit. In respect of the judgment in the case of J.Shivaji Yadav and another Vs. G. Srinivasa Murthy and others (1 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that the judgment was in respect of departmental examination where results were declared subsequent to holding of DPC and therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case on hand. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the only issue to be decided in this Writ Petition is W.P.No.6536 of 2021 6 the year of passing of the academic examination by the petitioner herein, i.e., November, 2010 the month in which the examination was held or January, 2011 the month in which the results were declared. The petitioner has admittedly appeared for the last of the qualifying examination in November, 2010 and the results of the said examination were declared on 25.01.2011. The University, which has issued the certificate, has issued a clarification that the date of appearance in the last of the examinations should be considered as the year of passing and not the date of declaration of the results. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra, while considering the date of passing of departmental test, has also held that the date of declaration of results is not the criteria, but it is the date of appearance of the examination by the candidate which he subsequently passed, is the criteria to be considered. Though the judgment is in a different scenario, the principle and ratio laid down therein would apply to the case on hand as well. Wherever an examination is conducted or the candidates are subsequently declared as passed the examinations, the date of appearance in the examination can only be considered as the date of qualification as the delay in the declaration of results should not affect the career prospects of a candidate, such as in this case, in awarding of W.P.No.6536 of 2021 7 weightage marks on account of passing the qualifying examination. G.O.Ms.No.166 dt.09.09.2017 only refers to the year of passing the basic qualifying examination but does not refer to the year of appearance in the examination by the candidate or the year of declaration of the results thereof. This view is further supported by the following other decisions:
(1) In the case of Chhotu Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"5. It is true that Rule 9 of the Haryana Service of Engineers Class II (Public Works Department, Irrigation Branch) Rules says that the cut-off date will be the 1st of January of the year concerned and here the cut-off date will be 1-1-1980. In a situation where a person takes an examination before the cut-off date and the result is declared after the cut- off date the above said administrative order dated 23-7-1973 clarifies as to what is to be done. In our view the said clarification is not in conflict with the statutory rules, inasmuch as it only states that where by the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee meets, the result is also declared, -- maybe subsequent to the cut-off date, -- the person must be considered to be eligible with reference to the date of the examination if the examination had been conducted before the cut-off date. We do not, therefore, see any conflict between the clarification dated 23-7-1973 and the statutory 2 (2000) 10 SCC 399 W.P.No.6536 of 2021 8 rules. Giving effect to the abovesaid clarification, it must be held that the appellant was qualified as on September 1980 when DPC met. We, therefore, order that the case of the appellant be considered on the basis that he was qualified by the cut-off date, 1-1-1980. If he is considered fit for promotion as in September 1980, he shall be given the necessary promotion and other consequential benefits......"
(2) In the case of Union of India & others Vs. Tej Ram 3, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, while referring to the case of State of Karnataka Vs. T. Chandrashekhar (2004 (6) SLR 803 : (2005 (1) S.C.T. 289), held that:
"the relevant date/time for construing whether the aspirant successfully cleared/passed the departmental examination is the date on which he takes the examination and not the date when the result of the examination is announced."
(3) In the case of Alpana Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and another 4, the Allahabad High Court held as under:
"17. It is pertinent to mention here that declaration of result is nothing but formal pronouncement and certificate of the performance done by the examinee in that examination. In other words the declaration of result is the consequence of her successful performance in the examination. If the answer 3 2014 SCC OnLine HP 5246 4 1993 SCC OnLine All 583 : (1993) 2 AWC 1275 W.P.No.6536 of 2021 9 books could have been valued on the same date i.e. the date of examination, she would have been declared successful on the date of examination and therefore, declaration of the result relegates back to the date of examination. Under the circumstances it is deemed that by virtue of her successful performance in LL.B. Examination, she acquired LL.B. qualification on the date when she actually appeared in the examination, and the delay caused by the University in declaration of her result was beyond the control of the petitioner.
18. Same view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Sangam Lal Pandey Vs. State of U.P. (1990 (1) UP LB EC 706) and it was held that irrespective of the date of declaration of the result, the date on which the last paper of the final examination in which the petitioner appeared would be the date of deemed possession of the requisite qualification."
6. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner and directs the respondents to consider the year of passing of B.Sc. (Nursing) by the petitioner as November, 2010 as is reflected in his Original Degree Certificate, and award him weightage marks of 7 and consider his case for appointment as Staff Nurse in accordance with his merit in any unfilled vacancy that is available pursuant to Notification No.57/2017 dt.08.11.2017 in accordance with Rules thereunder. The respondents shall take a decision W.P.No.6536 of 2021 10 in this regard within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 13.08.2024 Svv