Fakeer Chand vs Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:

“That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondent Commission to consider the candidature of the petitioner

for the post of Lecturer History (School-New) on the bass of his application No.1209928 dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure P-2) which he submitted to the

respondent pursuant to the advertisement No.18/2019 dated 02.11.2019

(Annexure P-1).â€​

It is averred that the respondent issued an Advertisement No. 18/2019 dated 02.11.2019 for the post of Lecturer (School New). The petitioner

being fully eligible submitted his application No. 1209928 complete in all respect for the post of Lecturer-History (School New) from the Scheduled

Caste Category and also paid the requisite fee. The petitioner was anxiously willing for the call letter and it is then he learnt that the selection pursuant

to Advertisement No. 18/2019 was not taken to its logical end and the respondent thereafter issued Advertisement No.22/2019.

This action on the part of the respondent has been assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent could not have issued the

subsequent advertisement without taking the first advertisement to its logical end and at best the subsequent advertisement could have only been

issued in continuation to the earlier advertisement. In addition, the respondent was required to adjust the fee that had been deposited by the petitioner

while submitting application pursuant to Advertisement No.18/2019. The respondent was required to append a specific note in the new advertisement

to the effect that the candidates already applied need not to apply afresh.

We have heard Shri Daleep Singh Kaith, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material placed on record.

It appears that the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the Advertisement No. 22/2019 uptill the filing of the present writ petition or else he

would not have ventured to file the petition. The Advertisement No. 18/2019 dated 02.11.2019 was in fact withdrawn on 22.11.2019, as is evident

from the Note-2 appended with the Advertisement No.22/2019. In addition thereto, it was clearly provided that the candidates, who had paid the

examination fee need not to pay the same again and the examination fee will be linked with current application. The candidates were only required to

fill the new applications with the same LOGIN ID which was used for the earlier application for the post of Lecturer with the required details, as is

evident from Note-2 appended with the advertisement No.22/2019, which reads as under:

“NOTE-2: THE CANDIDATES WHO HAVE EARLIER APPLIED IN RESPONSE TO ADVT. NO. 18/2019 DATED 02.11.2019 WHICH

WAS WITHDRAWN ON 22-11-2019 AND HAD PAID THE EXAMINATION FEE NEED NOT TO PAY THE EXAMINATION FEE

AGAIN. THEIR EXAMINATION FEE WILL BE LINKED WITH CURRENT APPLICATION AFTER THE RECONCILIATION OF

EARLIER EXAMINATION FEE. THEY HAVE TO FILL THE NEW APPLICATION WITH THE SAME LOGIN ID WHICH WAS USED

FOR EARLIER APPLICATION FOR THE POSTS OF LECTURER (SCHOOL NEW) WITH REQUIRED DETAILS i.e. MATRICULATION

AND 10+2 FROM ANY SCHOOL/INSTITUTION SITUATED WITHIN HIMACHAL PRADESH. PROVIDED THIS CONDITION SHALL

NOT APPLY TO BONAFIDE HIMACHALIS. THE CANDIDATES WHO APPLY WITH DIFFERENT LOGIN ID WILL HAVE TO PAY

THE EXAMINATION FEE AGAIN.â€​

In view of the aforesaid note, the petitioner has no legitimate grievance whatsoever to espouse before this Court.

The contentions of the petitioner that he was not informed or the advertisement could not have been withdrawn are equally fallacious and deserve

to be rejected. The respondent was well-within its right to withdraw the Advertisement No. 18/2019 as the eligibility stipulated therein was not correct

and was rectified by the subsequent advertisement. In the earlier advertisement, the eligibility was (i)Matriculation Certificate (age proof), (ii) Post

Graduate Certificate in the concerned subject with 50% marks, (iii) B.Ed Certificate with 50% marks, whereas, in the subsequent Advertisement

No.22/2019, the eligibility was (i) Matriculation Certificate from any School/Institution situated within Himachal Pradesh, (ii) 10+2 Certificate in

support of eligibility from any School/Institution situated within Himachal Pradesh (Condition No.1 &2 ibid were not to apply to Bonafide Himachalis),

(iii) Post Graduate Certificate in the concerned subject with 50% marks and (iv) B.Ed. Certificate with 50% marks.

It would be noticed that Advertisement No. 18/2019 though provided for filling up posts of Lecturer (School New) with simple matriculation,

whereas, in the subsequent advertisement, the essential eligibility was that the candidate should have passed matriculation and 10+2 from any

School/Institution situated within Himachal Pradesh or is a Bonafide Himachalis.

As regards informing the petitioner about the earlier advertisement, he has failed to bring to our notice any provision which makes it incumbent upon

the respondent to inform the applicants about the withdrawal of any advertisement. It is for the prospective candidates themselves to be vigilant and

keep themselves abreast with the activities of the Public Service Commission. In the given circumstances, the petitioner has no one to blame except

himself.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.