AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
W.P. Nos. 72160/2012, 72203 to 72206, 72169 to 72171/2012 and 64331/2012 are directed against the rejection of application of the petitioners for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.). Facts, which are not in dispute are that, the High Court of Karnataka had issued a notification dated 6.8.2011 interalia inviting the applications for direct recruitment to 152 posts of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) including the existing and consequential vacancies. The minimum qualification prescribed was a Law Degree by the University established by Law in India and must be enrolled as an Advocate and applicant must have completed as on the last date fixed for the receipt of application, 38 years of age in case of candidate belonging to S.C./S.T. and 35 years of the age in case of others. The last date for receipt of application was fixed as 5 p.m. on 16.9.2011. The applicants were required to accompany the requisite documents along with the application and it was made known to the applicants that, the applications, which do not accompany the documents stated therein will be rejected.
(under lining is mine)
These petitioners had enclosed Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate in proof of date of birth, however, their applications were rejected. As against the said endorsement, petitioner in W.P. No. 72160/2012 had approached this Court in W.P. No. 62881/2012. The learned Single Judge by order dated 16th April 2012 had issued a direction to the Civil Judges'' Recruitment Committee (in short referred to as ''Committee'') to receive the representation with attested copy of S.S.L.C. certificate and dispose of the said representation in accordance with law, as it is done in the case. of petitioners in earlier writ petition.
Similarly, even in W.P. No. 72203 to 72206/2012, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 30565 to 567/2012 and connected matters, by order dated: 17th April 2012 had permitted the appellants therein to make a representation to the Committee placing true copy of the S.S.L.C. or equivalent examination certificate, showing the date of birth within the period of one week from the date of the order. Such orders were also passed in other cases.
It is also not in dispute that, these petitioners did make a representation along with necessary documents, however, the Committee by the impugned endorsement has again rejected the application on the ground that, they are not in conformity with item No. 1 page 8 of the Gazette Notification dated 6.8.2011. It is against this rejection, all these petitioners are before this Court.
Heard Sri. B.D. Hegde, Sri. H.M. Dharigond, Sri. Rajashekhar Burji and Sri. Gurubasavaraj S.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Megha C. Kolekar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the requirement of the notification that the applicant must be not more than 38 years as on the date of receipt of the application, if he belongs to SC/ST and 35 years of age in other cases. In proof of their age, petitioners had produced school leaving certificate issued by the school authorities, however, the required document was the SSLC certificate. However, in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, petitioners produced the SSLC certificate. It is stated that there is no difference in date of birth in the school leaving certificate and the SSLC certificate. It is further submitted that this Court having directed the Committee to consider the representation along with SSLC certificate, the Committee should have accepted the application. It is submitted that, the requirement of production of SSLC certificate is to prove the age of the applicant and such documents have been produced before the Committee.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment of the Apex Court reported in Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, and submitted that, in case of requirement of production of the Law Degree Certificate, the candidate who had produced the Bar Council certificate, the Apex Court has held that, said certificate is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of notification. It also submitted that, the school leaving certificate issued by the school authorities proves date of birth of the applicant. The school leaving certificate should have been accepted. Even otherwise, when this Court directed to receive the representation along with SSLC certificate, the direction issued by this Court was not hollow formality. Having given such opportunity, the Committee ought not to have rejected the application of these petitioners, and it is contrary to the direction issued by this Court.
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that, notification specifically stipulates that the applicant must produce the requisite documents, before the last date for receipt of the application. In case the application is incomplete, such applications would be rejected. The cut-off date was fixed as 16.9.2011 and once the cut-off date is fixed, the Committee has no power to receive any additional document or material in support of the application, which is already filed.
To support her contention, she relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others, and submitted that, the Apex Court has held that, once the cut-off date is fixed, the application must accompany all the documents before the cut-off date arm not subsequent to the same and submitted that, this Court, no doubt, had directed the Committee to consider the representation of the petitioners. Since the application of the petitioners had not accompanied the SSLC certificate, which was one of the necessary documents to be produced along with the application and such documents having been filed subsequent to the last date, the Committee rightly rejected the same and the Committee cannot extend the date and/or receive the documents after the cut-off date is fixed in the notification.
The only point that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is:
As to whether the requisite documents stipulated in the notification inviting for application for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) could be accepted after the last date?
From the facts as stated above, it is clear that, 16.9.2011 was the last date for filing application. The notification, which is produced at Annexure-A in W.P. No. 72160/2012, invites the application for recruitment to the pos of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and the requisite qualification was a Law Degree from the University established by Law in India and applicant must have enrolled as an Advocate. The second mandatory requirement was that, the applicant should not be aged more than 38 years in case of S.C./S.T. and 35 years in case of others. To prove the same, the authenticated document required to be produced was the SSLC certificate. At page No. 7 of the notification relating to applicant form reads as under:
The prescribed form of application in duplicate should be filled in by the candidate in their own handwriting and must be accompanied by the following testimonials, failing which their application will be rejected.
(underline supplied by me)
Emphasis is made to the words "failing which their application will be rejected" and this boldly printed in the notification. The required document as "true copy of SSLC or equivalent examination certificate to show the date of birth of candidate."
In consonance with the requirement of age proof, the SSLC certificate or equivalent examination certificate was required to be produced along with the application. Admittedly, all these petitioners have not produced the SSLC or equivalent examination certificate, in turn, school leaving certificate/transfer certificate has been produced. What is notified is the required document and the same has to be produced along with the application before the last date of receipt of the application. However, what is produced is the school leaving certificate. The required document produced after the due date cannot be accepted and this issue is well settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Rekha Chaturvedi''s case (supra) wherein the Apex Court at para-1.0 held as under:
The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Majoj Swarup took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be mode to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and Another Vs. B. Sarat Chandra and Others, and District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, .
The Apex Court in case of fixing the last date has observed that, unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz., even those candidates, who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open is hope for mal-practice. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite of qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for scrutiny of the qualification will be the last date for making the application.
Now any exception to this rule would lead to acceptance of documents after the due date and may lead to uncertainty in the matter of selection. In case of uncertainty in fixing the date of receipt of application, to put an end to this type of controversies, the Apex Court has held that, last date of receipt of application should be the criteria on or before which the applications must submit along with the necessary documents. The receipt of additional documents would have conferred arbitrary power on the authority to receive some more applications and thereby the very purpose of fixing the date would have defeated. The identical issue also came up before this Court reported in Dr. H S Prakash and Dr. Mahantesh Gudleppa Todakar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, and the said judgment is also followed by this Court in W.P. No. 936/2012.
No doubt, it would be heart burning for some of the applicants for not complying with the requisite mandatory requirement of the notification, but that does not mean that, Court should interfere with the process of scrutiny of selection of candidates by giving scope to entertain an application even after the due date or allow the documents to be filed as and when the applicants produce the same. It would lead to unnecessary delay in the process of scrutiny, delay in process of the selection and also gives contrary results. As such, having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court, having regard to the circumstances, though this Court has directed for consideration of the applications, however, the representations, which were considered by the Committee, the said Committee found that, the required documents are sought to be produced after the due date and the notification having clearly stated that such applications, which are not in consonance with the requirement of notification, can be rejected. The candidate, who is not diligent, who could not comply with the requirement of the notification, cannot come at a later stage and submit that he may be permitted to present the documents, such a concession would not be in the interest of the scrutiny of the application or selection of the candidates.
It is now submitted that, the scrutiny is over and the process is also complete and examination for the candidates is also fixed on 8th December 2012 and at this stage, I do not find it is appropriate to interfere with the said selection process and as such, I find that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not merit.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. No doubt, the Committee after the direction was issued has not referred to the representation and has also not given cogent reasons, however, it is not in dispute that, admittedly, all these petitioners have made a representation with requisite documents after the due date. If that is true, even if there is no reason assigned in the impugned communication, that will not vitiate the decision of the Committee.