Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karampal Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619
298 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-23789
23789-2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22
22-10-2024
KARAMPAL KAUR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. H.C Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti, AAG Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner is that though the petitioner was fully eligible to compete for the post of Punjabi Master in General (Sports) Category keeping in view the Advertisement dated 20.11.2015(Annexure 20.11.2015(Annexure P P-1) but, the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of appointment despite the fact that the candidate candida lower in merit have already been granted the appointment in the General (Sports) Category.
Category Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the only reason given by the respondents to deny the petitioner the benefit of appointment that the petitioner has has passed Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test with 87 marks in the Backward Category hence, the petitioner cannot be appointed 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 04:36:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619 CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -2- against the said post reserved for the General Category Sports Person which has to be filled from the General Category as 90 marks were required for a General Category candidate to pass the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test, which the petitioner does not have.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground being taken to deny the appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3545-3549 of 2015 titled "Vikas Sankhala and ors. Vs. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal and ors.", decided on 18.10.2016, wherein it has already been held that once a candidate might have passed the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in the reserved category, the said candidate can be considered in the General Category as well without raising objection that the marks secured by the candidate in the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test is less than the one required to clear the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in General Category.
The learned counsel for the respondent-State still adhered to their stand that unless and until the petitioner cleared the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test with 90 marks, the petitioner cannot be considered against any post, which has to be filled by a General Category candidate whereas in the present petition, the petitioner has secured 87marks by which the petitioner cleared the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in the Backward Category thereby considering her not eligible.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
The question has been posed before this Court is whether a candidate who has cleared the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 04:36:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619 CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -3- Reserved Category can be considered in the General Category or not even if, a candidate has secured lesser marks in the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test as compared to the minimum marks required for clearing the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in the General Category. The said question of law, has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vikas Sankhala's case (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-
"62. In Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2010(3) S.C.T. 826: (2010) 3 SCC 119, this Court has very categorically held that relaxations given in educational qualifications etc. making a person eligible to participate in selection process would not be treated as availing benefits in the recruitment/employment and the benefits envisaged have 10 be those which have direct relation to recruitment/employment and are relatable to the jovial relationship of employer and employee. It is also clarified that such benefits must occur from and should be post level playing field. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment touching upon the aforesaid aspects:
"48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list.
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 04:36:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619 CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -4-
49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates.
75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfil the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition."
It is stated at the cost of repetition that provision of giving 20% marks of TET score was applied to all candidates irrespective of the category to which he/she belongs and, therefore, no concession or 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 04:36:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619 CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -5- relaxation or advantage or benefit was given in this behalf which could disturb the level playing field and tilt advantage in respect of reserved category candidate. On the contrary, the reserved category candidates who had secured less marks in TET examination are given lesser marks in the recruitment process on the application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of TET score. Question No. 3 is answered accordingly."
Learned State counsel submits that as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3609 of 2017 titled "Deepa E.V Vs. Union of India and ors.", decided on 06.04.2017, the Bar exists for considering the Reserved Category Employees who have claimed relaxation to compete in the General Category.
It may be noticed that the said judgment in Deepa E.V's case (supra) has been given on the basis of the instructions where existed in the said case imposing an express bar for the candidate belonging to the reserved category claiming consideration in the General Category by the grant of relaxation. But no such Bar has been brought to the notice of this Court in the present case so that the petitioner cannot compete for the post in General Category after clearing the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in the Reserved Category of Backward Class. Rather, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Jitender Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" 2010, Vol.3 SCC 1990, covers the field in favour of the petitioner so as to make her eligible for the post in question.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that all the posts, in the Sports Category (General) which could not be filled were not transferred to General Category and have been filled up.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 04:36:48 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619
CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -6-
The denying of the appointment to the petitioner despite the settled principle of law in her favour, is an illegal act of the respondents and merely that the posts have been filled up, will not come against the petitioner especially when the petitioner has filed the present petition immediately after the selection process is over.
Let, the petitioner be considered in the Sports Category (General) in accordance with her merit and in case any candidate lower in merit than the petitioner has been appointed on the post in question in the Category in which the petitioner is competing, the petitioner be granted the benefit of appointment in the cadre of Master even if, a supernumerary post is to be created so that candidate who have already been appointed, are not disturbed in any manner.
The petitioner will be given appointment w.e.f. the date candidates lower in merit have been granted but, the petitioner will not be given any financial benefit and till the actual appointment of the petitioner, which should be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Present petition is allowed in above-stated terms. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
22-10-2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2024 04:36:48 :::