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.

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

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

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

2017 (2) ALD 736 (DB)

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

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

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

(2000) 10 SCC 399

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

2014 SCC OnLine HP 5246

1993 SCC OnLine All 583 : (1993) 2 AWC 1275

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

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