The single judge bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sukhroop Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others held that the terms and conditions of recruitment process were clearly mentioned advising the candidates to carefully go through the same before filling up the online application form, since no change can be made whatsoever once the online application form is submitted.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner’s father is working with the Punjab Police and even, he was actively involved in curbing terrorism in the State of Punjab. The petitioner applied for the recruitment as the male constable in the District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre. According to the clause 5 of the said advertisement relating to reservation of seats, 2% seats were reserved for “Wards of Police Personnel”. The petitioner, who was completely qualified, responded to the aforementioned advertisement and submitted his online application under the "General Category" within the deadline.
However, the petitioner here was unable to state that he falls under the category of "Wards of Police Personnel" due to an unintentional error or mistake on the website/server or because he is not an expert at submitting online forms. The petitioner contacted the respondents-State to correct the error, but he was told there was no method to do so and his application would still be taken into consideration for the category of "Wards of Police Personnel" at the time of the interview and personality test.
According to the statement, if the petitioner is treated as "Wards of Police Personnel," he is entitled to four marks. The final list was created and made public, and it was revealed that the petitioner in this case received a total of 27 marks. The last candidate chosen received a score of 27, compared to the cutoff scores of 29 for the District Police Cadre and 28 for the General Category of the Armed Police Cadre. The current writ suit was filed in protest of the denial of an additional four marks for being "Wards of Police Personnel."
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner on coming to know that he had filled the form in the general category instead of under the category of “Wards of Police Personnel”, approached the department for rectification of the mistake but was informed that there is no such procedure.
The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment titled Dolly Chhanda versus Chairman, JEE, 2004 (4) SCT 546, Charles K. Skaria and others versus Dr. C. Mathew and others, 1980 (2) SCC 752.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that the last date of submission of the online application form was 21.06.2016 and the last date for deposit of fee was 23.06.2016. The petitioner herein was issued a provisional admit card under the “General Category”. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein appeared in the selection process fully knowing the conditions in the advertisement, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the candidates have to be extremely careful while filling in their online application form. The petitioner did not have any relevant document at the time of submission of his online application form pertaining to the fact that he was “Wards of Police Personnel” and, therefore, entitled to be considered under the 2% quota as the certificate that has been issued to him, which is after the last date of submission of the online application form and also well after the provisional admit card having been issued.
The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment titled Sweety Nagar versus the State of Haryana and another.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble High Court held that the judgments on which the counsel relied are distinguishable and are not relevant to the facts of the present case. the petitioner applied under the general category for the post of Constable in the District Police Cadre and Armed Police Cadre. The provisional result was declared on 26.10.2016. The petitioner herein has not been able to establish that any attempt was made to have the correction done in his category in time between the last date of submission of his online application form and provisional admit card having been issued. From the perusal of the record, it would appear that the correction was sought only on 03.11.2016.
It is submitted that documents were to be supplied at the time of interview, but the interview in this selection did not take place. However, the certificate issued to the petitioner to establish that he was “Ward of Police Personnel” had itself been issued on 10.11.2016, well after the provisional result was declared . It would be gathered that the petitioner herein has sought a change in his category after the declaration of the provisional result dated 26.10.2016.
It does not stand to reason that the petitioner herein underwent the entire process of selection as a General Category candidate and did not realise in fact that he should have applied under the 2% quota kept for a “Wards of Police Personnel”. In the advertisement issued, the terms and conditions of recruitment process were clearly mentioned advising the candidates to carefully go through the same before filling up the online application form, since no change can be made whatsoever once the online application form is submitted.
The candidates were also asked to upload the documents as relied upon, which certificate reflecting the petitioner as a “Wards of Police Personnel”, was not done in the instant case. In fact, the petitioner was not in possession of the same at the relevant time. Therefore, the instant petition is dismissed and the state has rightly declined to consider the application of petitioner under “Wards Of Police Personnel” reservation.
CASE NAME- Sukhroop Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others
CITATION- CWP No.26293 of 2016
CORUM- Justice Jaishree Thakur
DATE- 04.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :