news details |
|
|
| High Court directs respondents to declare petitioner’s result for Medical Officer | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 21: Justice Sanjeev Kumar while allowing a petition filed by Sakshi Gupta, directed to declare the result of the petitioner and in case, she has made the grade, she shall be recommended to the Government for her appointment as Medical Officer against any available post within a period of four weeks from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the respondents. This shall, however, be subject to petitioner depositing Rs 1,000 i.e. Rs 400 as fee and Rs 600 as penalty for delay, in the account of Public Service Commission . Needless to say that on receipt of the recommendations from the Public Service Commission, the consequential order of appointment shall be issued in favour of the petitioner. The appointment of the petitioner shall, however, be prospective.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing Adv Sumit Nayyar for the petitioner observed that the petitioner has, somehow, failed to deposit the requisite fee online. It is clear that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner not to pay the requisite fee before the cut off date. The petitioner made a genuine attempt to pay the fee online and credited the same to the account of the Commission but, as it appears, due to some technical fault or poor internet connectivity, the petitioner could not succeed in her attempt. It is true and rightly contended by the respondent-Commission that in such event the petitioner was supposed to approach the respondents and make the deposit there. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to do so and in that event respondent No.2 did not accept her application form and did not generate her admit card. Clause 5(m) to (r) of the advertisement notification, relied upon by learned counsel for the Commission, clearly provide that candidate is supposed to pay requisite fee through online mode only in “submitted application menu” in its account and in case payment status shows either “not submitted” or “under processing” or status has not been reflected on the submitted application form, the candidate is advised to contact the J&K Public Service Commission Office Solina/Reshamghar Colony, Jammu immediately for clarification.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that this admittedly, has not been done by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the question arises as to whether for this negligence on part of the petitioner, she should be punished by rejecting her candidature altogether or same can be condoned in the special facts and circumstances of the case. From a perusal of Clause 5(m) to (r) of the advertisement notification, I could not find any consequence having been provided by the Commission for failure of the candidate to deposit the requisite fee before the cut-off date. That apart, it is not a case where the petitioner had not intended to deposit the fee but is a case where her attempt to do so had failed due to technical reasons. The only mistake which can be attributed to the petitioner is that she should have immediately apprised the Commission when she found the payment status showing “under processing”, but that mistake or even if, we call it a negligent act on part of the petitioner could not be taken as a ground to reject her candidature ab initio.
The fact that the petitioner has participated in the written examination, pursuant to the interim direction of this Court, and has reportedly made the grade is another factor, which cannot be ignored by this Court. With these observations High Court observed that the foregoing reasons, despite holding that the petitioner was negligent in depositing the online fee of Rs 400 within the stipulated time, and allowed the petition. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
