Punjab-Haryana High Court
Archana vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
*****
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) Date of Decision : 23.4.2024 Archana ..... Non-Applicant/Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Applicants-Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana for the respondents/applicants Mr. R.Kartikeya, Advocate and Mr. Raghav Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner/Non-applicant Mr. Amit Rao, Adovcate, for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no.3
---
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.:
This application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 12.9.2019, whereby the petition was disposed of directing the Commission to recommend the petitioner for appointment against the vacant post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT)-Psychology, Rest of Haryana cadre, under BC-B category, in the Secondary Education Department.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for the post under BC-B category in response to advertisement no.4 of 2015 dated 28.6.2015, whereby forty-nine posts of PGT-Psychology were advertised; last date to submit the application form was 12.10.2015. She had cleared the written examination, but was not called for interview on 16.10.2018 for want of requisite qualification; her Detailed Marks Card (DMC) of M.A. 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 20:42:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000 RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -2- Psychology was issued in 2017, which was after the closing date for submission of application forms. However, during pendency of the petition, she was provisionally interviewed under interim direction issued by this Court. The result was produced in a sealed cover, showing that she had scored ninety-seven out of two hundred marks. One of the selected candidate had lesser marks than those of the petitioner. The petition was contested by the respondents-applicants only on the ground that the petitioner's candidature was rightly rejected on the basis of DMC issued to her after the closing date for submission of application forms for the post. Whereas, on the basis of material placed on record, it was concluded by the Court that the petitioner had passed M.A. Psychology in 2014. Only on account of an error in her father's name in the DMC, a corrected one had to be issued on 8.8.2017, which too was prior to the date of interview conducted on 16.10.2018. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioner was fully eligible for the post and her candidature was wrongly rejected. In these circumstances, the petition was disposed of directing the Commission to recommend the petitioner for appointment against a vacant post.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants/respondents has contended that the judgment passed by this Court needs to be reviewed on account of factual errors. The petitioner had scored seventy-six marks in the written examination, as against eighty-six marks scored by the last candidate called for interview. Therefore, she could not have been interviewed being below the last candidate called, and twenty-one marks of provisional interview/viva-voce could not have been added to it making her eligible for recommendation by the Commission. The direction issued by the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 20:42:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000 RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -3- Court is based on wrong facts. Accordingly, the judgment needs to be reviewed declaring the petitioner not entitled to recommendation.
4. Heard.
5. Concededly, the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered on the pleadings of the parties as well as the material/documents placed on record substantiating the same. The only ground on which petitioner's candidature was rejected, was her not possessing M.A. Psychology before the closing date for submission of application forms, 12.10.2015. She filed the petition challenging the said action. In the written statement/ affidavit filed by the respondents also the claim was contested only on the ground of her ineligibility, contending that the Commission was right and considering the petitioner ineligible on the basis of DMC issued to her in 2017. The result of written examination was declared vide announcement dated 30.11.2018, Annexure A-2, wherein the petitioner's result was withheld. Accordingly, on the date of filing of the written statement/short reply dated 1.7.2019 before the Court, the respondents were well aware of the marks scored by the petitioner in the written examination, still no objection was taken regarding her ineligibility for interview due to her written test marks being lower than those of the last candidate called for interview. The only ground pleaded was that on scrutiny of documents on 20.8.2018, the petitioner was found not eligible since her M.A. Psychology DMC was issued after the cut-off date for submission of online applications. Resultantly, it cannot be said that there is any factual error in the judgment dated 12.9.2019.
6. For the reasons recorded above, there is no ground to review the judgment dated 12.9.2019.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 20:42:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -4-
7. Dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
23.4.2024
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 20:42:11 :::