Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suman vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 October, 2024
CWP-24344-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
118 CWP-24344-2024
Date of Decision: 24.10.2024
Suman ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:- Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate, and
Ms. Nirmala, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.06.2023, Annexure P-23, whereby the petitioner's representation against having been declared ineligible has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner applied for the post of Craft Instructor (Women) Cutting and Sewing (Theory), category 46, under BC-B category in response to advertisement 12 of 2019, Annexure P-16. The posts earlier advertised in 2017 and withdrawn had also been re-advertised vide this advertisement, and the candidates who had earlier applied against these posts were considered eligible against the re-advertised posts as well after giving age relaxation, if required; also, such candidates were exempted from payment of application fee. Based on the stipulation, learned counsel contends that the qualifications which were notified for these posts in 2017, should be PAYAL 2024.10.29 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-24344-2024 -2- made applicable for the instant selection as well. Since the petitioner fulfilled those qualifications, her candidature could not have been rejected for want of eligibility.
3. Heard
4. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 23.06.2023, shows that the petitioner was not having the requisite degree/diploma from an institution recognized by the National Council for Vocational Education and Training (NCVET) as required in terms of the advertisement and was, accordingly, considered ineligible. The fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner as well. His contention that the petitioner is to be considered eligible on the basis of qualifications earlier notified for these posts in 2017 is without substance, since the advertisement in question, 12 of 2019, specifically laid down the qualifications inviting applications for the posts in question. And the petitioner knowingly participated in the selection process without raising any grievance against it. After remaining unsuccessful, at this stage, she cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge those qualifications.
5. In view thereof, no ground to entertain the petition is made out, and it stands dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
24.10.2024
Payal
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PAYAL
2024.10.29 18:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment