Kamna Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner participated in the selection process for the posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist. The result of selection process was declared on 18.10.2019. Petitioner's name figured in the list of selected candidates under the category of OBC(ward of ex- servicemen). The merit list was revised by the respondents on 11.02.2020 pursuant to a judgment passed on 25.11.2019 in CWP No. 3035 of 2019 alongwith other connected matters. According to the reply filed by respondent No.3, petitioner failed to secure place in the revised merit list and is now placed at Sr. No.1 of the waiting list in OBC (ex-servicemen category).

Through the instant writ petition, petitioner prays for permitting her to produce her two certificates i.e. certificate of Land Holding and certificate of National Service Scheme before the respondent Staff Selection Commission for evaluation for the posts in question. In support of this prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment dated 25.11.2019, delivered in CWP No. 3035 of 2019, titled Sunita Devi Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission and others alongwith connected matters and submitted that petitioners in those cases were permitted to produce certificates at a much later stage of the selection process, therefore, on the same analogy the petitioner be also allowed to produce these certificates before the respondents Commission. We have gone through the said judgment. The petitioners therein had participated in the same selection process which is involved in the instant writ petition. Their contention before the Court was that the certificates already produced by them within the stipulated period before the Staff Selection Commission were not being considered on the ground that they were not on the prescribed format. It was under those circumstances that the Court observed as under :-

"7. It appears that Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, has declared the category-wise final result for the recruitment of 66 posts on 18th October, 2019 (Annexure P-14) i.e. General (W.Exsm)=37; OBC (W.Exsm)=10; SC (W.Exsm)=13 and ST (W.Exsm)=06 of Ayurvedic Pharmacist (on contract basis), whereby the candidature of petitioners have been rejected, as they have failed to submit the applicable certificate on the prescribed format for fulfilling the requirements of grant of reservation of Ward of Exservicemen category at the time of 15 marks evaluation process.

Be that as it may, for the present we are only concerned with the consideration of the certificates issued to the Wards of Exserviceman by the competent authority namely, Deputy Director, Zila Sanik Welfare Officer and again another certificate to be issued by Patwari/Pradhan Gram Panchayat/President of NAC/ Executive Officer of MC etc. with further counter-signature of Tehsildar/SDO (Civil), for their consideration to the posts in question. The applicant had to file an affidavit to that effect and thus it was the duty of the respondent-Commission to find out whether the certificates have been issued by the competent authority or not and evaluate their candidature without rejection, in the light of the certificates. In our considered view, the certificates should have been considered for the purpose of evaluation of the petitioners by the respondent Commission.

Though the petitioners have no fundamental right of selection but have a fundamental right for consideration to the selection and while dealing with fundamental rights respondents have to take all possible steps for considering the applications, until and unless it is hopelessly barred by non-compliance. If any of the applications/certificate was not in the proper format and if there is a technical error, it is to be treated as curative defect which can be curated at any time. At this stage, we find the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners nothing but violation of fundamental right for the purpose of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The fact position of instant case is different. It is not the case of the petitioner that the certificates now sought to be produced were submitted by her before the respondent Commission in any kind of format or form whatsoever within the stipulated period. The merit list was revised pursuant to the judgment rendered in Sunita Devi's case (supra). Petitioner is not situated similarly to the petitioners in CWP No. 3035 of 2019 and connected matters. Hence, we find no merit in the instant writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.