Allahabad HC terms Selection Process for Principal of Medical College as Corrupt, cancels entire process

Two years later, on 15.07.2015, the Commission issued a communication directing the applicants to submit the experience certificate within one month. It had been clarified by the Commission that submission of certificates after the deadline will not be accepted. Therefore, the time for submission of experience certificate was extended by around 20 months after the cut-off date for the submission of form. The communication dated 15.07.2015 had been issued since none of the applicants had submitted complete/correct experience certificate.

The daily adds that on 13.08.2015, the petitioner doctor submitted a certificate dated 04.10.2015 and the document was issued by the Deputy Secretary of the UP Ayush Department and counter signed by Director, Homeopathy on 12.08.2015. As per the concerned certificate, the petitioner doctor had administrative experience/no objection from 19.09.2005 to 04.10.2013. However, the certificate does not provide any detail regarding the nature of administrative experience including the certified posts.

It was further noted by the court that the certificate also does not state why the administrative experience details of all the other candidates including the doctor who was given the post of principal was not provided by the State Government.

On the basis of the said selection process on 06.08.2018, the Director of Homeopathy also wrote to the Secretary of Ayush, UP giving details of administrative experience of the appointed doctor and requesting for issuance of his administrative experience certificate as well.

Relying on the communication, the State interviewed Dr. Srivastava and noted that the interview was held without submission of no objection certificate from the State, difference of name in the affidavit and in absence of education /administrative experience certificate issued by the State Government and duly countersigned.

Following this, Dr. Srivastava had been appointed for the post subject to the submission of the required documents within 21 days. However, the doctor could not submit the required certificate within 21 days and later, the State denied granting him the appointment after noting that Dr Srivastava does not have the required administrative experience.

However, the court noted that surprisingly via a communication dated 10.09.2017 State again granted permission to Dr. Srivastava for participating in the interview. Challenging this communication, the petitioner doctor approached the HC bench and prayed for a mandamus commanding the authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for the post of principal and issue an order appointing the petitioner for the said post.

It was submitted by the petitioner's counsel that Dr. Srivastava does not have required administrative experience and the administrative experience certificate had been issued by Dr Srivastava after the cut-off date and therefore it cannot be accepted.

On the other hand, the counsel for the State, the appointed doctor, and the counsel for the Commission submitted that the name of Dr. Srivastava is rightly recommended as he stood above the petitioner in the merit list after the interview. It was further submitted by them that the certificate was duly issued by the concerned persons both with regard to his education and administrative qualifications and, therefore, there was no illegality in the said selection process.

Taking note of the submissions by both the parties, the HC bench observed that the manner in which the Commission and the State proceeded with the selection process is shocking.

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, noted the court.

The bench also referred to Rule 32 and clarified that according to the rules, all the eligible candidates shall be admitted for examination, subject to the provisions of above rule. Therefore, according to Rule 32 the examination including the interview shall be conducted only of qualified candidates, noted the bench.

It was noted by the court that in the selection process, interviews had been conducted even without verifying the qualification and experience certificate of the candidates. At this outset, the bench observed that 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," the bench further noted.

"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," further noted the bench as it cancelled the entire selection process.

Also Read: Doctors should prepare post-mortem or injury reports in typed format, legible: HC asks UP Govt to issue directions to CMOs