Monika Rawat v. Secretary Uttarakhand Subordinate Selection Commission and others

that petition, she has challenged a communication dated 14.08.2019 of the respondent no. 3/ Director, Uttarakhand Technical Education by which her candidature for the post of Computer Programmer-Cum-Operator was rejected. Special Appeal No. 283 of 2023 has been preferred by the appellant Kavita Bisht, who was petitioner in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2390 of 2019. She has challenged Office Memorandum dated 22.07.2019 issued by the respondent no.2/Secretary, Uttarakhand Technical Education, by which, her candidature was rejected for the post of Computer Programmer-Cum-Operator. Both these appeals are delayed.

3. Heard on Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2023 in Special Appeal No. 283 of 2023 and Delay Condonation No. 1 of 2023 in Special Appeal No. 284 of 2023.

4. Having considered, we are of the view that there are good grounds to condone the delay. The delay condonation applications are allowed. Delay in preferring the appeals are condoned.

5. The appellant Kavita Bisht did BBA from Indira Gandhi Open University and Masters Degree in Computer Application in the year 2018. She has also done one year diploma in Computer Application. 3

6. The appellant Monika Rawat has also completed her Masters in Computer Application and has also done her Advance Diploma in Software Engineering from Aptech Computer Education.

7. The respondent Uttarakhand Subordinate Selection Commission (“the Commission”) published an advertisement on

20.11.2015 for various posts. Both these appellants were eligible for appointment to Post Code-10 i.e. Computer Programmer-Cum- Operator for which, the qualifications given in the advertisement is as follows:- “(i) Bachelor’s Degree with minimum one year Diploma in Computer Application, which is recognised by Central Government or the State Government; or (ii) Recognised Diploma in any branch of Engineering and minimum one year Diploma in Computer Application, which recognised by Central Government or the State Government; or (iii) M.Sc. Computer Science.

8. Both these appellants appeared the written examination. They were in the select list; they were called for documents verification, which they attended. In the final select list, the name of the appellant Kavita Bisht did not appear. Though, the Department of Personnel and Training and Department of Law, Government of Uttarakhand has opined that both these appellants holds higher qualification and are eligible the position. Subsequently, the appellant Kavita Bisht filed a Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2769 of 2018, which was decided on 29.04.2019 with the direction to the respondent no.2/Uttarakhand Technical Education to decide the 4 representation filed by the appellant Kavita Bisht. The representation was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.07.2019, which was challenged by the appellant Kavita Bisht in the writ petition.

9. Insofar as, the appellant Monika Rawat is concerned, the Commission by its communication dated 14.01.2019 to the respondent no.3/Director, Uttarakhand Technical Education informed that the process for appointment of the appellant Monika Rawat may not be stayed now. But finally, by the impugned order dated 14.08.2019, the candidature of the appellant Monika Rawat was also rejected on the ground that her Diploma for one year is not valid.

10. The respondent no.1/ the Commission has filed its counter affidavit and has stated that it is a recruiting agency and has completed its duty by the completing the selection process. The respondent no.1/the Commission has no role.

11. The respondent no.3/Director, Uttarakhand Technical Education has in his counter affidavit stated that the prescribed qualification is a compulsory qualification. Therefore, a candidate who holds qualification higher than the prescribed qualification does not possess the compulsory qualification and cannot be held eligible for the position. In the counter affidavit, reference has been made to the judgment in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Imtiaz Ahmad and others, (2019), 2 SCC 404.

12. Learned Single Judge by the common judgment held that similar issue has already been decided in WPSS No. 1936 of 2019, Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, therefore, a 5 different view cannot be taken and rejected the both the petitions. Hence, the appeals.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. It is argued that both the appellants are Masters in Computer Application, which is the qualification higher than the qualification given to be eligible for Post Code-10 i.e. Computer Programmer-cum-Operator. Learned counsel submits qualification that has been published in the advertisement dated

20.11.2015 by the respondent no.1/the Commission is the minimum qualification. It is not “the qualification”. He submits that in the case of minimum qualification, a candidate having higher qualification would definitely be held eligible, unless the rules or the advertisement prescribe particular qualification for an examination. He submits that in the counter affidavit, the State has referred to the law laid down in the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra). But, he submits that the facts of the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra) are quite distinct. There the eligibility qualification was “the qualification” and it was not “minimum qualification”. It is also submitted that, in fact, similar controversy has already been decided by this Court in WPSS No. 790 of 2014, Pramod Rana and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, which was decided on 04.01.2016, and appeal against it has already been decided on 01.05.2025 in Special Appeal No. 205 of 2016, Secretary, Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Govt. Polytechnic, Pitthuwala Campus, Dehradun Vs. Sri Pramod Rana and others. 6

15. Learned State counsel has not disputed the decision of this Court in the case of Pramod Rana (supra). He also very fairly concedes that only the advertisement is different, but the controversy is similar in the case of Pramod Rana (supra), which has been upheld in the special appeal as well.

16. In fact, there are catena of decisions on the subject. In the case of Zahoor Ahmad (supra), the facts are quite distinct. There the qualification for the post was Matric with ITI in relevant trade, but during the course of selection in that case, the diploma in other trades and some other qualification, including diploma in Electronics and Communication etc. were also considered. But, finally a decision was taken that only ITI in relevant trade has to be considered for the post. This decision was finally upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Instant case is quite different.

17. In fact, this Court need not discuss the issue much in detail because in the case of Pramod Rana (supra) also, the petitioners were B.Sc. and Masters Degree in Computer Application. They had applied for the post of Computer Programmer/Operator in the State of Uttarakhand Technical Education Board for which minimum education qualification was Graduation with minimum one year diploma in Computer Application. The claim of the petitioners in that case was rejected on the ground that the educational qualification is minimum one year diploma in Computer Application, whereas those petitioners were actually having Masters Degree in Computer Application. In the case of Pramod Rana (supra), the Court has observed as follows:- 7 “3. The requirement, as sought by the respondents, is neither a diploma or a degree. What was sought is that the candidate should have at least have one year Diploma in Computer Application, but the petitioners have in fact more than 2 this minimum requirement, which is that they have done three years Master Degree Course in Computer Application. Hence, they clearly fulfill the criteria of qualification and their candidatures should not have been rejected. In other words, it is not a case where the qualification is only “diploma”. It is “at least one year diploma in Computer Application.”

4. In the counter affidavit the stand of respondents is that the petitioners have qualification which is higher than what was being sought. This is not the case where qualification ‘A’ was being sought and the petitioners have qualification ‘B’ or ‘C’ i.e. something entirely different. They have the same qualification, in fact more than the minimum required. The requirement was that the candidate must have at least one year Diploma in Computer Application, which would mean that those who have done more than one year Diploma or even Degree in Computer Application are also eligible.

5. In view thereof, the writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioners, subject to the verification of the documents of the petitioners and satisfaction on other aspects.”

18. The judgment dated 04.01.2016, passed in the case of Pramod Rana (supra) was challenged by respondent no.3/Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education in Special Appeal No. 205 of 2016, Secretary, Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Govt. Polytechnic, Pitthuwala Campus, Dehradun Vs. Sri Pramod Rana and others, which was rejected on 01.05.2025. The controversy has already been decided. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions filed by the appellants Kavita Bisht and Monika Rawat ought to have been allowed and the respondents need to be directed to offer appointment to the appellants. 8

19. The appeals are allowed.

20. Judgment dated 11.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition is quashed.

21. The impugned order dated 22.07.2019, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2390 of 2019, passed by the respondent no.1/the Commission by which the candidature of the appellant Kavita Bisht was rejected is quashed.

22. Similarly, impugned order dated 14.08.2019, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2306 of 2019, passed by the respondent no.3/Director, Uttarakhand Technical Education by which the candidature of the appellant Monika Rawat was rejected is quashed.

23. The respondent no.2 Secretary, Technical Education Government of India is directed to ensure that appointment letters are given to both the appellants, namely, Kavita Bisht and Monika Rawat within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.12.2025 16.12.2025 Jitendra