Prem Pal vs Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
2021 Latest Caselaw 402 HP

                                          1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                            .
                                                  CWP No. 2057 of 2020





                              Date of Decision: 07.01.2021
______________________________________________________________________





Prem Pal                                              ....Petitioner.

                              Vs.
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission, Hamirpur and another                                                        .....Respondents.

Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.


For the petitioner:                               Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents:                              Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate, for
                                                  respondent No. 1.



                                                  Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional
                                                  Advocate General, for respondent No. 2.




                                                  (Through Video Conferencing)

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):

The controversy involved in this petition is in a very

narrow compass. Vide Annexure P­3, applications were invited by

respondent No. 1 for filling up the posts of Radiographer in the Health

and Family Welfare Department, 154 in number, on contract basis. In

terms of the Advertisement, online applications were to be submitted

between 16.09.2017 to 15.10.2017 and the eligibility of the candidates in

respect of essential qualifications and experience was to be seen as on

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

15.10.2017. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 informs the Court that

.

this date was extended up to 31.10.2017, which fact is not in dispute.

The eligibility criteria contained in the Advertisement for appointment to

the posts of Radiographer, inter alia, provided that the candidate should

be 10+2 in Science from a recognized Board of School

Education/University and Diploma in Radiology from an Institution

recognized by the Central/H.P. Government. The candidature of the

petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 1, inter alia, on the ground

that he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria contained in the

Advertisement as on the last date of consideration of eligibility of the

candidate, because 10+2 certificate which was submitted by the

petitioner was dated 05.12.2017, i.e., a date post the last date on which

the eligibility of the candidate was to be ascertained.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also

gone through the documents appended with the pleadings.

3. Annexure P­4 is the copy of 10+2 certificate of the

petitioner, perusal of which demonstrates that the same was issued by

the National Institute of Open Schooling on 05.12.2017. Learned counsel

for the petitioner has submitted that the certificate so issued to the

petitioner was on account of his re­appearing in 10+2 examination. On a

pointed query which was put to learned counsel for the petitioner by the

Court, he has fairly stated that it is not as if earlier the petitioner had

successfully passed 10+2 examination and he re­appeared in the

.

subsequent examination for improvement of marks. This means that

earlier the petitioner had failed in 10+2 examination and he only passed

the same in terms of the certificate which stood issued in his favour on

05.12.2017. That being the case, this Court finds no illegality in the act of

the respondent No. 1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, because

as admittedly the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification

as on 15.10.2017 extended up to 31.10.2017, therefore, in these

circumstances, the respondent No. 1 had no option but to reject the

candidature of the petitioner.

4. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this

petition is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge January 07, 2021 (bhupender)