Pramod Kumar vs State Of Up Thru Addl.Chief Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9935 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13607 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of Up Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Karmik Lucknow And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Nishi Chaudhary,Rinku Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Shukla,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya)
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission and Sri Rahul Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.10.2018 whereby petitioner's selection to the post of Additional Private Secretary has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification as prescribed for the post and advertised by the Advertisement dated 25.12.2010.

3. Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.9667(SS) of 2019 with a prayer to issue appointment order to him in pursuance to the selection made by the U.P. Public Service Commission for the post of Additional Private Secretary in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.12.2010.

4. Said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2019. Operative portion of the order would read as under:-

"Heard Sri R.K. Chauhdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the U.P. State Public Service Commission, Prayagraj for the opposite parties.

Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel has apprised the Court that on 12.10.2018 an order has been passed by the Public Service Commission rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and copy of the said order has been provided to learned counsel for the petitioner.

Since the petitioner would be assailing the order dated 12.10.2018, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed being infructuous giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition assailing the order dated 12.10.2018 before appropriate Court of law.

Let the copy of order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj be taken on record."

5. Advertisement dated 25.12.2010 would disclose following Educational Qualifications:

"(1) A Graduate degree from any University recognized by Law in India or any equivalent qualification recognized equivalent by the Govt.

(2) Minimum 80 words p.m. speed in Hindi shorthand and minimum 25 words p.m. speed in Hindi type is essential.

(3) The knowledge of computer is essential as follows:

(A) Syllabus for CCC for DOEACC Society or

(B) Course Conducted by U.P. Secondary Education Board or any syllabus recognized equivalent to that."

6. A few writ petitions came to be filed before this Court at Allahabad being Writ A No.49786 of 2017 and other connected writ petitions alleging that certain candidates did not have requisite valid computer certificates and have been selected despite not possessing the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement.

7. A coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad vide detailed judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 allowed three petitions. Petitioner's name was specifically mentioned as one of the candidates, who did not possess the requisite 'CCC' certificate as prescribed in the advertisement. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to examine the certificates of eleven persons including the petitioner and others, whose names were mentioned in para 11 of the said judgment, after giving them opportunity of hearing. It was further held that if their certificates were not found to be issued by an institution recognized by State or University and were not equivalent to 'CCC' Certificate of DOAECC Society as held by this Court in Prasant Kumar Jaiswal's case or as mentioned in the Government Order dated 26.05.2015, their selection should be cancelled on the ground of not having requisite qualification of 'CCC' Certificate.

8. Para 11 and 12 of said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-

"11. A perusal of the certificates of candidates attached along with the reply to the supplementary affidavit sworn on 19th December, 2017 shows that Pramod Kumar had certificate on Computer Concept from an institution managed by RAC Computer pvt. Ltd., Lucknow. The equivalency certificate has been issued by Executive engineer. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that this certificate was recognized by State or University and equivalency certificate has been issued by an expert on the subject; Satendra Kumar Pandey had a certificate of Computing from Indira Gandhi Open University. There is nothing on the record to show that it was equivalent to 'CCC'; Mohd. Akeel had Diploma in Computer Application from Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur. This institution is not recognized under the Government Order, nor there is equivalency certificate; Bipin Kumar had a certificate from U.P. Development Systems Corporation Ltd. There is nothing on record to show that the institution was recognized by State or University or the certificate is equivalent to 'CCC'; Amit Kumar was having a National Certificate in Modular Employable Skills. There is nothing on record to show that his certificate is equivalent to 'CCC', nor the certificate is mentioned as equivalent to 'CCC' in the Government Order; Dr. Monika Chaudhary was having National Certificate in Modular Employable Skills. There is nothing on record to show that her certificate is equivalent to 'CCC', nor the certificate is mentioned as equivalent to 'CCC' in the Government Order; Meenu Pal was having a certificate from Education and Training Division of UPDESCO. There is no equivalency certificate, nor this certificate has been mentioned as equivalent to 'CCC' in the Government Order; Abhilasha Singh was having certificate from Janjyoti Computer Saksharta Mission. This is also a private institution, not recognized by the State or University and there is no equivalency certificate; Surendra Nath Yadav was having certificate course in computer from Jan Sikshan Sansthan, Allahabad; Pradyumn Kumar was having certificate of Computing from Indira Gandhi National University. There is no equivalency certificate; Surendra Kumar was having National Certificate in Modular Employable Skills. There was no equivalency certificate; Champa Gupta was having certificate of Advanced Office Automation Tools and Concept from U.P. Development Systems Corporation Ltd. which is a private institution, not recognized by State or University, nor there was any equivalency certificate; Alok Kumar was having a certificate, not equivalent to 'CCC'; Shivi Tripathi was having certificate in Computer Concept from Times Computer Education, Rae Bareilly, which is a private institution. There is nothing on record to show that it was recognized by State or University, or it is equivalent to 'CCC'; Rama Kant was having certificate in Computer Basics from UPTEC. There is noting on record to show that the institution was recognized by State or University, nor there was any equivalency certificate; Prakash Chand Saroj was having certificate dated 21.3.2011, while the last date was 21.1.2011; Mridula Bhatt was having Diploma in Computer Application from Nari Sewa Samiti, U.P. Lucknow. There is nothing on record to show that the institution is recognized by State or University, or the course is equivalent to 'CCC'; Dharmendra Kumar was having certificate from Government Industrial Training Institute, Gonda, which is not equivalent to 'CCC'.

12. In the result Writ-A Nos.49786, 49800 and 49868 of 2017 are partly allowed. U.P. Public Service Commission is directed to examine the certificates of the persons whose names have been mentioned in Paragraph-11(supra), giving them opportunity of hearing. If their certificates are not found to be issued by an institution recognized by State or University and are equivalent to 'CCC' Certificate of DOAECC Society [as held by this Court in Prasant Kumar Jaiswal's case(supra)] or as mentioned in Government Order dated 26.5.2015, then their selection shall be cancelled on the ground of not having requisite qualification of 'CCC' Certificate or its equivalent qualification and the candidates from select list be taken in the final select list in proportion to it. This procedure shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order upon U.P. Public Service Commission. Writ-a No.50571 of 2017 is dismissed."

9. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court, a three members committee was constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, which examined the computer certificates of eleven candidates, whose names found mentioned in para 11 of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018. Three members committee found that 'CCC' Certificate of the petitioner was not as per the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement as the institution from where he obtained the certificate was not a recognized institution by DOEACC or the University or any other recognized institution. The petitioner has obtained the certificate from a private institution namely, R.A.C. Computers. There is no document on record to suggest that the said private institution was recognized by DOEACC.

10. Sri Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the Government Order of 2001 to say that aforesaid private institution was recognized for only computer courses for the Government of U.P. However, it appears that there is a subsequent Government Order of 2015, which has been taken note of the judgment and order dated 11.01.2018 wherein a committee was directed to examine the certificates of eleven candidates in the light of the Government Order dated 26.05.2015. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing to produce testimony of him having a valid 'CCC' Certificate on 12.06.2018 in support of his claim that he was having a certificate from the institution deemed to have recognized by DOEACC, however, he failed to produce any such certificate.

11. When the petitioner admittedly does not have requisite certificate as prescribed in the advertisement, this Court would not substitute its opinion that the certificate the petitioner possess, would be equivalent to as required in the advertisement.

12. Sri Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Government Order of 2015 will have no application to the advertisement, which was issued in the year 2010. This Court would not like to record a finding on this issue inasmuch as a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2018 has directed the Commission to examine the validity of the computer certificates of 11 persons in the light of the Government Order and as per the advertisement. Said judgment and order has attained finality.

13. In view thereof, I find that since the petitioner did not possess requisite certificate in Computer from the institution as mentioned in the advertisement, his certificate was not in accordance with the advertisement. I do not find any error in the impugned order whereby candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled. Thus, this petition fails, which is hereby dismissed.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Order Date :- 5.4.2023

prateek