The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court canceled the entire selection process going on for nearly 10 years in the matter of selection for the two posts of Principal of the State Homoeopathic Medical College, terming it as corrupt.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Dr Ram Chandra Singh Yadav.
The Petitioner has approached the Court challenging the administrative experience certificate dated 31.08.2018 issued by State Government and communication dated 18.12.2018 issued by Secretary, U.P Public Service Commission, Allahabad, recommending name of respondent no 5 to the State Government for the post of Principal, State Homeopathy Medical College.
The facts of the case are that, on 24.08.2013 an advertisement was issued for two posts of principal of State Homeopathy Medical College (one unreserved and one reserved for a woman candidate from State of U.P).
As per the advertisement, the necessary qualifications are:- (a) diploma or degree in Homeopathy or qualification as provided in 3rd Schedule to the Homeopathy, Central Council Act, 1973; (b) 5 years administrative experience along with 10 years teaching experience in any recognized Homeopathic Medical College or Hospital; A note at the bottom of the advertisement further required that the experience certificate should be issued by appointing authority and counter signed by Director, State Homeopathic Service or competent authority of the State Government.
Last date for submission of forms was 24.09.2013. Petitioner, respondent no 5 and other persons applied for the said post. The qualification certificate was required to be issued by the State authorities. It appears that all the candidates were working on different posts in the State Government/hospitals etc. and, therefore, were in position to obstruct/cause hindrance in issuance of experience certificates etc of other candidates.
On 15.07.2015, Commission issued a communication that the teaching/administrative experience certificate can be submitted within a period of one month, otherwise the application shall not be considered, i.e, after nearly a period of 20 months of the cut-off date for submission of form, the time for submission of experience certificate was extended. The said note dated 15.07.2015 was issued as none of the candidates who had applied had submitted complete/correct experience certificate.
Petitioner on 13.08.2015 submitted a certificate dated 04.10.2013, countersigned by Director, Homeopathy on 12.08.2015. The said certificate with regard to petitioner states that he has administrative experience/no objection from 19.09.2005 to 04.10.2013. It was issued by Deputy Secretary of Ayush Department of State of U.P and counter signed by Director, Homeopathy. The said certificate does not give any detail of the nature of administrative experience including posts certified.
The said certificate also does not state as to why the administrative experience details of all other candidates, including respondent no 5, was not provided by the State Government. Director Homeopathy on the basis of the said selection process on 06.08.2018 also wrote a letter to the Secretary, Ayush, State of U.P giving details of administrative experience of respondent no 5 and requesting for issuance of his administrative experience certificate also.
The Commission on the basis of aforesaid communication of the State Government conducted interview of Dr Mukesh Srivastava, specifically noting that the interview is held without submission of no objection certificate from the State Government, difference of name in the affidavit and in absence of education /administrative experience certificate issued by the State Government and duly countersigned.
Dr Mukesh Srivastava was selected subject to submission of required documents within 21 days. Dr Mukesh Srivastava failed to submit the required certificate within the aforesaid period of 21 days. The State Government by communication dated 04.05.2017 found that Dr Mukesh Srivastava does not have the required administrative experience and, thus, refused to grant him appointment.
It appears that surprisingly thereafter by communication dated 10.09.2017 State Government again granted permission to Dr Mukesh Srivastava to participate in the interview. The said communication dated 10.09.2017 was challenged by petitioner by way of Writ and he further prayed for a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to forthwith forward the name of petitioner for appointment on the post of principal and further to issue an order appointing petitioner on the post of principal against the aforesaid advertisement.
L.P Mishra, counsel for petitioner assisted by Badrish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, vehemently submitted that respondent no 5 is not having required administrative experience.
He submitted that the administrative experience certificate of respondent no 5 is submitted much after the cut-off date and, hence, the same cannot be accepted.
L.P Mishra, further submitted that petitioner alone having both the educational qualification and administrative experience duly submitted and is entitled for selection and appointment.
Opposing the same, Standing Counsel and Vijay Dixit, counsel for respondent no 5 and counsel for respondent Commission submitted that name of respondent no 5 is rightly recommended as he stood above the petitioner in the merit list after interview. The certificate is duly issued by the concerned persons both with regard to his education and administrative qualifications and, therefore, there is no illegality in the said selection process.
The Court said that the manner in which the Commission and the State Government has proceeded with the selection process is shocking. The advertisement was made on 24.08.2013 with the cut-off date as 24.09.2013. Required certificates were to be submitted before the said date. The qualification certificate including the administrative experience certificate was required to be issued by the State authorities. It is sad to note that the State authorities failed in their responsibility throughout the selection process. They ought to have issued the qualification/ experience certificate of all candidates who had applied to the Commission before the said cut-off date, as they all were employees of the State. It is surprising that the selection process proceeded without even verifying the qualifications of the candidates participating in the selection process.
The Court further said that,
Rule 32 specifically provides that all eligible candidates shall, subject to provisions of above rule, be admitted for examination. Thus, as per Rule 32 examination including interview shall be conducted only of candidates who are qualified.
In the selection process, admittedly, interviews were conducted without even verifying the qualification and experience certificate of the candidates. Without verification of qualification no merit list could have been prepared, still names were forwarded to the State Government for making appointments. The same shows that a mockery of the entire selection process is made by the Commission as well as by the State Government. The State Government while at times refused to grant administrative experience certificate to a candidate later changed its stand and issued it. It is not at the discretion of the State authorities to issue or not to issue the qualification/ experience certificate. They were duty bound to issue the same. The aforesaid situation has vitiated the entire selection process. Nearly 10 years have passed and the selection process is not yet completed. The qualification of candidates, which was required to be scrutinized by the State, apparently was never done. At whmis certificates were issued without any application of mind. Even a certificate dated 13.08.2015 issued in favour of the petitioner does not contain the basis on which the same is issued.
It is also not clear as to why the certificate is issued only with regard to some of the candidates and not with regard to all the candidates. Even if a person was not qualified, it was incumbent upon the State authorities to issue a certificate to the said effect. The State authorities sat over the matter in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner. The Commission has also in a highly arbitrary and illegal manner proceeded with the selection without even verifying the qualifications of the participants. This has vitiated the entire selection process. Even today this Court is not clear as to the persons who are qualified as per the advertisement. It is also not the job of the Court to summon the record and verify the qualifications and experience of each candidate and decide upon the same.
Before the court only two persons namely, Dr Ram Chandra Singh, petitioner and Dr. Govind Swaroop, respondent no 5 are present. Other candidates who appear to have participated are not before the Court. The earlier merit list prepared without verifying the qualifications/ experience certificate of the candidates on the face of it is illegal and cannot stand. The illegalities are such that the same have vitiated the entire selection process.
“Now at this stage, it is not proper to further delay the selection process by requiring the State to verify and certify qualifications/experience of all the participating candidates and, thereafter further requiring the Commission to again hold the selection process on the basis of a fresh qualified candidate list. Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to cancel the entire selection process initiated by Advertisement dated 24.08.2013”, the Court observed while disposing the petition.
Hence, the Court canceled the selection process initiated by Advertisement dated 24.08.2013.