Dr. Babit Kum ar Bihan ot hers ...Pet it ioners v. St at e of Ut t arakhand ot hers

6. Mr. Miglani further submitted that after rendering only one year service, petitioners could not have been given maximum marks for experience as there were candidates, who had served as part time lecturer for 10 years or more and petitioners could not have been treated at par with such candidates. He points out that maximum marks which could be given for experience is 10, therefore, some distinction has to be made between candidates, depending upon their length of service. He further submits that respondent nos.4, 5 & 6 were fresh 4 candidates without any experience of serving as part lecturer, however by virtue of their better performance, they scored 74, 73 and 73 marks respectively, therefore, petitioners cannot have any grievance against selection of private respondents.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that Rule 9(e) of the Uttarakhand Higher Education (Group ‘A’) Service Rules was amended vide notification dated

16.11.2011 and Clause 9(e) was added providing for maximum 10% bonus marks to the candidates, who have served as part time lecturer in any Government College within the State. Rule 9(e) of Service Rules as amended vide notification dated 16.11.2011 reproduced below:- “(e) Candidates working as Part-time Lecturer in Government College of the State, if eligible, shall get maximum ten percent bonus marks of the total marks obtained in the Examination/Interview provided Part-time Lecturer possesses the minimum qualification prescribed by the Government for the post of Lecturer.”

8. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that since petitioners have served as part time lecturer Government Degree Colleges, therefore, they are entitled to 10% bonus marks as per Rule 9(e) of Service Rules and denial of 10% bonus marks by the selecting body to them is unjust and illegal. He further contends that allotting 1% marks in place of 10% as provided in the Rules, resulted in denial of appointment to the petitioners, therefore, this illegality deserves to be undone and selecting body be directed to award 10% bonus marks to them as per Rules. 5

9. Learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission, per contra, submits that 10% is the maximum bonus marks, which can be given to a candidate for experience. He submits that candidates with much longer experience had participated selection and if 10 marks were given to a candidate with experience of only one year, then it would be unfair to other candidate, who had experience of 10 years as he could also be given only 10% marks as bonus marks. He submits that although Rules were silent regarding marks to be given for each year of service, however the Commission took a decision to award 1% bonus marks for each completed year of service. He submits that going by the policy decision taken by Commission, petitioners were given 1% bonus marks as they had completed only one year of service.

10. This Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of Public Service Commission. In view of ambiguity in the Rules, selecting body was justified in taking a policy decision in order to make the Rules workable, Director Higher Education, in para 5 of his counter affidavit has endorsed the decision taken by Public Service Commission. Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by Director Higher Education reproduced below:- That denying the contents of paras 3 to 6 of the “5. writ petition, it is submitted that in the Uttarakhand Higher Education (Group 'A') (Amendment) Service Rules, 2011, there is a provision that the contract lecturers working in Govt. Colleges of the State are to be awarded 10% bonus marks of the total marks obtained in the Examination/Interview for the post of Lecturer. But there is a difference in the English and hindi version of the said provision. The english version includes the words "maximum ten percent bonus marks" whereas the hindi version merely provies “dqy 6 vadksa ds 10% cksul vad”. Thus as per hindi version 10% of total marks obtained in the examination/interview are to be awarded as bonus marks whereas as per english version maximum ten percent of total marks are to be awarded as bonus marks. It is pertinent to mention in this connection that in an another matter the Public Service Commission Uttarakhand vide letter dt. 24 Dec, 2014 clarified that it was not logical to award 10% bonus marks to all candidates having experience as contract lecturer length. Therefore irrespective of maximum 10% bonus marks have been awarded to the candidates adopting the criteria of 1% bonus marks for each academic session. their service Based on the said criteria the bonus marks awarded to the petitioner can only be explained by the Public Service Commission, who is respondent no. 3 in the present writ petition.”

11. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is difference in English version and Hindi version of the Uttarakhand Higher Education (Group ‘A’) Amendment Service Rules, 2011. In view of the provision contained in Article 348 of the Constitution of India, in case of a difference between Hindi and English version of a statute, English version would be treated as authentic text. Going by English version of Rules, decision taken by the Commission, cannot be faulted.

12. Learned counsel for petitioners then submitted that interview was held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 24.03.2014 and by that time petitioners had completed nearly four years of service as part time lecturer, therefore, they were entitled to 4% bonus marks and decision taken by Commission to award only 1% bonus marks to them, is bad in law.

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission submits that length of service rendered as part time lecturer has to be seen as per the information supplied by a candidate in his application. 7 He further submits that experience, if any, earned after submitting application cannot be taken into account, therefore, petitioners were entitled to only 1% bonus marks and not 4%, as contended by their counsel.

14. We find substance in the said submission made by learned counsel appearing for Commission. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has to hold selection for different posts for which interviews are held round the year, therefore, computation of bonus marks has to be made with reference to the information regarding experience supplied in the application form. Even otherwise also, policy decision taken by the Commission was made applicable across the board to all candidates. It is not the case of petitioners that they were targeted due to ill will or malice. No special prejudice is caused to them by the decision taken by Commission. This appears to be anguish of an unsuccessful candidate. Thus, the grievance, raised by the petitioners, in this writ petition, is without any substance. The action of Public Service Commission in granting 1% of the total marks scored by petitioners as bonus marks for each completed year of service, cannot be faulted.

15. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

24.04.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH 8