2025:UHC:3135-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No.469 of 2014 Dr. Babit Kumar Bihan & others ...Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents Presence: Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission/respondent no.3. Coram: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) Petitioner nos.1 and 2 were engaged as part time lecturer in different Government Degree Colleges in Uttarakhand with effect from 04.10.2010, while petitioner no.3 was so appointed with effect from 02.12.2010. They responded to an advertisement dated 04.12.2011, issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, inviting applications for regular appointment as Assistant Professor. 2. Petitioners participated in the selection but their names could not figure in the list of successful candidates. Respondent no.4 with 74 marks and respondent nos.5 & 6 with 73 marks each were declared successful in the selection. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the 1 2025:UHC:3135-DB nature of quashing the line of Clause 5 (Ga) mentioned as- ^^foftfVax ySDpjj@va”kdkfyd izoDrk ds :Ik esa dk;Zjr~ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ijh{kk@lk{kkRdkj esa muds }kjk izkIr dqy vadksa ds vf/kdre 10 izfr”kr cksul vad fn;s tk;saxsA^^ The English version is here:-(The Visiting Lecturer/Part-time Lecturer will be given maximum 10% marks). (ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quashing the result dated 23.04.2014 of Sociology subject concerned to the private respondent nos.4, 5 & 6. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 to rectify the anomaly of selection process of Sociology subject that is concern to the petitioner in regard to awarding 10% bonus mark to the petitioner as Higher Education Amended Rules 2011 of 9 (Gha) & 9 (Cha) and also as per advertisement No.04 Mh0vkj0@fMxzh@lsok&02@2011&12 dated 04.12.2011. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to award the 10% bonus mark to the petitioner in the selection process of History subject held on 24-03-2014 and 25-03-2014 so far concerned to the petitioners and declare the result of Sociology subject awarding the proper opportunity to the concern effected respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 and further prayed to summon the record/broad-sheet of the Interview Board. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to resolve the controversy adjusting the petitioners on the vacant post of Sociology as a regular faculty/Assistant Professors of Sociology subject. 3. Petitioners contend that as per Clause 5 (x) of the advertisement dated 04.12.2011, persons, serving as Visiting Lecturer/Part Time Lecturer in Government Degree Colleges, were to be given 10% bonus marks of total marks obtained by them in examination/interview for experience, provided they possessed minimum qualification prescribed for the post of 2 2025:UHC:3135-DB Lecturer/Assistant Professor. The grievance raised by them is benefit of bonus marks, available for experience earned as part time lecturer, was not given to them as a result, they could not be selected for appointment. 4. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, which held selection, has filed counter affidavit stating that Recruitment Rules applicable for the post in question provide that persons, serving as Visiting Lecturer/Part Time Lecturer will get maximum 10% bonus marks of total marks obtained by them in examination/interview; since there was ambiguity in the Recruitment Rules as to how bonus marks have to be given, therefore, a decision was taken by the Commission to provide 1% of total marks scored by a candidate, as bonus marks for each completed year of service. Para 6, 7 & 8 of counter affidavit filed by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is extracted below:- “6. That since there is a rider of maximum 10% bonus mark to be given to the candidates at the time of examination/interview who were working in the department as such. Thus there is no clarity in the service rules that how this maximum 10% marks will be granted to the candidates who are serving in the department from different-different time. 7. That in such a situation the answering respondent took a policy decision that 1% bonus mark would be given to the candidates for one academic session subject to maximum 10% bonus marks. 8. That in interview the petitioner no.1 got 70 marks petitioner no.2 got 70 marks and respondent no.3 got 68 marks. Since all the petitioner were worked for one academic session as contractual lecturer till the last date of submission of application form as such they were granted 1% bonus marks, thus their 3 2025:UHC:3135-DB total marks come 70.70 for petitioner no.1, 70.70, petitioner no.2 and 68.68 for petitioner no.3 in accordance to the policy decision taken by the answering respondent. Whereas the respondent no.4, 5, 6 got 74, 73 and 73 marks in interview as such the respondents were selected and the petitioner could not be selected in accordance to the merit and post available to be filled up. This writ petition of the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission submits that advertisement in question was issued on 04.12.2011 and last date for submission of application was 01.02.2012, therefore, on the date of submission of applications, petitioners had completed only one year of service, therefore, they were given 1% of total marks obtained by them in the selection as bonus marks. He further submits that petitioner nos.1 and 2 scored 70 marks each in selection, therefore, with 1% bonus marks their total score became 70.70 marks. He further points out that petitioner no.3 scored 68 marks in the selection, therefore, with 1% bonus marks, his score became 68.68. 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 2025:UHC:3135-DB candidates without any experience of serving as part time 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 is 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 the 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 in 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 2025:UHC:3135-DB 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 in 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 is reproduced below:- “5. That denying the contents of paras 3 to 6 of the 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 2025:UHC:3135-DB 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 irrespective of their service length. Therefore maximum 10% bonus marks have been awarded to the candidates adopting the criteria of 1% bonus marks for each academic session. 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 2025:UHC:3135-DB 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. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.04.2025 Arti 8 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 Date: 2025.04.28 18:09:32 +05'30'