Bhupendra Singh Majera and others vs Ritesh and others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Application (CLMA No. 306 of 2012) is allowed by deleting the name of appellant No. 17, since he has been impleaded by mistake as appellant No. 17.

An advertisement was published, where it was indicated that there are certain vacancies for the posts of Assistant Accountants. It was indicated in the advertisement that such vacancies are available in several districts of the State and the number of vacancies available in the districts had also been indicated. It was represented by the advertisement that the person responding to the advertisement should apply for the vacancies available in a district. The advertisement did not debar a candidate from responding to the said advertisement for more than one district. The respondent writ petitioner responded to the advertisement only in respect of the vacancies available in District Almora. In the writ petition, he accordingly arrayed only those respondents, who had responded to the vacancies available in Almora. It was contended in the writ petition that one of the essential qualifications, a person is required to possess, is obtaining of ''O'' level certificate issued by the Department of Electronics Accredited Computer Course, an organization of central government or one year computer course certificate from any university or institute, recognized by any State or central government. It was the contention of the writ petitioner that many persons, who have responded to the said advertisement, do not have the said qualification.

The obligation to select amongst the respondees of said advertisement was given to G.B. Pant University. The said university held out to the writ court that there is no available means of knowing, which institution has been recognized by the State or by the central government. The learned Judge, noting that the said qualification was a statutory requirement, directed the government to ensure that the selected candidates have such qualification.

Applicants herein, having had applied for the vacancies available in other districts, were not made parties to the writ petition and, accordingly, notice to them was not given before the judgment and order under appeal was rendered. In other words, they were not heard, nor any step was taken to apprise them that such a writ petition has been filed, before the judgment and order under appeal was rendered. The learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner submitted that at one stage of the writ petition, G.B. Pant University was directed to inform all respondees to the said advertisement that the writ petition has been filed and the same will be decided. Law does not recognize taking of such step. The fact remains, no step was taken to seek leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no affidavit on record of the writ petition filed by or on behalf of G.B. Pant University stating that all the respondees to the advertisement have been informed about pendency of the writ petition.

The word used in the Statute is "recognised". The mode and manner of such recognition, however, has not been indicated in the Statute. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that any method has been prescribed either by the State Government or by the Central Government to recognize an institution imparting certificate computer course of a duration of one year. That aspect of the matter has not been dealt with in the judgment and order under appeal.

The applicants have submitted that the directions contained in the judgment and order under appeal are being applied to all districts by the State Government, and while doing so, the State Government has not laid down the criteria / basis for recognition of such institutions. In the circumstances, it is the case of the applicants that they are aggrieved by the judgment and order under appeal. We feel that since the judgment and order was rendered in a writ petition, where a challenge was thrown in relation to actions pertaining to a particular district and those, who had responded to the vacancies available in the said district, were arrayed as parties to the writ petition, the judgment and order under appeal should remain confined only to that district. We, however, at the same time, make it clear that if the State Government or any other agency has followed the said judgment in relation to any other district, it must be deemed that they have done so of their own volition and not on the basis of the directions contained in the said judgment and order paving the way for the applicants before us to challenge the action of the State Government, if the applicants are so aggrieved. With the observations, as above, while we allow the application for condonation of delay (CLMA No. 13559 of 2011) in preferring the appeal, having considered the averments made in the application furnishing reasons for delay and being satisfied therewith, we also allow the application for leave to prefer an appeal (CLMA No. 13613 of 2011) against the judgment and order under appeal and, at the same time, allow the appeal by clarifying / modifying the judgment and order under appeal.