Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 04.08.2017, inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professor in various Government Degree
Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner also submitted his application-form before the prescribed last date i.e. 25.08.2017. Of the
advertised vacancies, 32 were for the posts of Assistant Professor (Geography). Of these 32 vacancies, 12 were reserved in favour of the Scheduled
Caste category. Of the 12 vacancies, reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, 4 were horizontally reserved in favour of Uttarakhand women, and
one in favour of ex-service men. Clause 4(2)(d)(4), of the advertisement dated 04.08.2017, stipulates that candidates, working as lecturers on a
contract basis in Government Degree Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand, will be granted a maximum of 10% of the total marks, obtained by them in
the interview, as bonus marks provided they had worked as lecturers on a contract basis, and possessed the minimum qualification prescribed by the
State for the post of lecturer. One mark was to be given for each academic year, during which the applicant worked as a guest-lecturer or a lecturer
on a contract basis. The petitioner joined as a guest-faculty in Geography, with the Government Degree College, Gairsain, during the academic session
2015-16 and continues to work as such till date. His grievance, in this writ petition, is that the 4th respondent, who also belongs to the Scheduled Caste,
was awarded 62 marks in the interview, and the petitioner was not selected for appointment on the ground that he secured 61.80 marks.
3. It is the petitioner’s case that, while initially the interviews were scheduled to be held in 2018, they were postponed and were eventually held on
19th February, 2020; at the time of interview, the petitioner produced a certificate, issued by the Principal of the Government Degree College,
Gairsain, to show that he had worked for five years from 23.12.2015 till date; the petitioner ought to have been awarded at least five bonus marks for
his having rendered service, as a guest-lecturer, for five academic years; and, since he was awarded only three marks (one mark for each year of
service) computing it till the last date of submission of application-forms i.e. 25.08.2017, he was illegally deprived of being selected for appointment;
and, in his place, the fourth respondent was appointed.
4. Sri N.S. Pundir, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, would submit that, while the advertisement was issued
on 04.08.2017, the last date for submission of application-forms was prescribed therein as 25. 08.2017; the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission
had uniformly extended the benefit of bonus marks to all candidates who appeared for interview, reckoning the number of years service rendered by
the applicants before the last date for submission of the application-forms; the certificate, which the petitioner had produced, showed that, while the
petitioner had completed two years service, and had commenced the third academic year of service on 09.08.2017, before the last date for submission
of the application forms i.e. 25.08.2017, he was therefore awarded one mark for each academic year of service i.e. a total of three marks; the service
rendered by the petitioner, for the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-20, were not taken into consideration, since this period of service was after the
last date for submission of the application forms i.e. 25.08.2017; the advertisement explicitly stipulates that the preferential educational qualification
must relate to the actual period when he was working as a contract lecturer in the Government Degree College; consequently his experience, after the
last date for submission of application-forms, was, rightly, not reckoned in computing the bonus marks to which he was entitled to; accepting the
petitioner’s contention would require such a benefit to be uniformly extended to all applicants; and the action of the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission, in restricting award of bonus marks only for the period of service rendered as a contract lecturer prior to the last date for submission of
application-forms, cannot therefore be faulted.
5. As noted hereinabove, the advertisement dated 04.08.2017 stipulated 25.08.2017 as the last date for submission of application-forms. The
experience certificate produced by the petitioner dated 25.01.2020 itself records that, while the petitioner had commenced his third year of service, in
the academic session 2017-18, on 9.08.2017 (before the last date for submission of application-forms on 25.08.2017), his service as a lecturer on
contract basis, for the two academic sessions 2018-19 and 2019-20, related to a period more than a year / two years after the last date for submission
of the application-forms on 25.08.2017.
6. As the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has uniformly granted bonus marks to all applicants, on the basis of the experience they possessed
before the last date for submission of application-forms i.e. 25.08.2017, and has not granted bonus marks to any candidate for the service rendered by
him, during the academic sessions subsequent to that date, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain that their action is arbitrary, discriminatory or in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not even the petitioner’s case that either the fourth respondent, or anybody else, has been
awarded bonus marks towards their experience, as a lecturer on contract basis in a Government Degree College for the academic sessions, they
worked as a contract lecturers, after the last date for submission of application-forms i.e. after 25.08.2017.
7. While it is, no doubt, true that the petitioner has lost out by just 0.20 marks, no interference is called for, since the claim for inclusion of his academic
experience, after the last date for submission of application-forms (25.08.2017), is not justified.
8. We see no reason, in such circumstances, to interfere with the action of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in selecting the 4th
respondent, and not the petitioner, as an Assistant Professor (Geography). The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, d1ismissed. No costs.
