Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Haryana Staff Selection ... on 9 December, 2021
CWP-24910-2021(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-24910-2021(O&M)
Date of decision:-9.12.2021
Darshan Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Arvind Seth, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Petitioner - Darshan Singh had appeared in the examination
in pursuance of the advertisement No.11 of 2019 for selection of Lower
Division Clerk (Head Office Cadre) for Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Ltd., Panchkula under the category of physically handicapped and
scheduled caste; he was declared as a successful candidate; the successful
candidates were invited for scrutiny of documents on 27.2.2021; the
petitioner did not appear for scrutiny of documents on that date; Haryana
Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the
Commission), which was carrying out the selection process issued various
notices dated 27.2.2021, 10.3.2021 and 22.3.2021 for calling absentee
candidates for scrutiny of documents on various dates i.e. 4.3.2021,
1 of 7
CWP-24910-2021(O&M) -2-
13.3.2021 and 23.3.2021; the petitioner did not appear on such dates; the
final result for the post was declared on 3.4.2021, which was on the basis
of written examination, scrutiny of documents and socio-economic
criteria.
2. The roll number of the petitioner did not figure amongst the
successful candidates in the final result. He had filed CWP No.13798 of
2021 on 19.7.2021 in this Court praying that Commission be directed to
do his document verification and if found eligible for the post, then his
name be shown at appropriate place in the merit list. He had further
prayed that his representations dated 6.6.2021 and 25.6.2021 be got
decided. That writ petition was disposed of directing Commission to
decide the representations dated 6.6.2021 and 25.6.2021 by passing a
speaking order within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of
that order. Accordingly vide speaking order dated 9.11.2021, copy of
which has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure P30, the
Commission had rejected the representations mainly on following
grounds:
(i) The Commission gave various chances to absentee candidates
including the petitioner for scrutiny of documents but petitioner did
not avail of such opportunities.
(ii)The Commission had not given personal/individual notice to any
candidate through SMS/Email/postal, rather notices were published
on official website of the Commission and it was duty of the
candidates to stay aware about the information published on the
official website.
2 of 7
CWP-24910-2021(O&M) -3-
(iii)The entire selection process is complete inasmuch as final result
for the post was declared on 3.4.2021, whereas petitioner had
approached the Commission on 6.6.2021 and 25.6.2021 after
completion of the selection process.
(iv)The claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected in view of
judgment passed in CWP No.1379 of 2017 titled as Rekha Jangra
Versus the State of Haryana and others passed by this Court
wherein under similar circumstances, it was observed that once the
respondents had published the result in a newspaper, nothing
further could be expected from them and that the contention that
respondents should have inform the selected candidates individually
is not requirement of law. It was further observed that the UPSC
had rejected the candidature of 45 persons due to non-submission of
the required documents and/or submission of documents in the
wrong format and if any relief is granted to the respondents in the
writ petition, it would be appropriate to grant a similar relief to
other similarly placed candidates, some of whom may not have
approached the Tribunal for relief and if that exercise were to be
undertaken, perhaps the entire examination, for the sake of
accommodation a few persons such as respondents, would require
to be cancelled, which was neither in the interest of candidates, who
have qualified nor in the public interest.
(v)The contention of the petitioner that one candidate, who has been
selected in OH category has not joined till date and if he does not
submit his joining then the petitioner should be given opportunity
3 of 7
CWP-24910-2021(O&M) -4-
for scrutiny and his name be mentioned in the waiting list. In that
regard, no such intimation letter had been received from the
concerned department.
(vi)If any absentee candidate like petitioner is given chance at this
stage i.e. after declaration of final result then every other absentee
candidate will claim chance to appear for selection process from the
stage where they were absent and were not able to selected in final
result for that reason and if absentee candidates are gived chances
after declaration of final results, then results will be kept being
revised and would not be finalized for any post.
3. Against that order the petitioner has filed the present civil
writ petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides going
through the record and I find that the writ petition is absolutely without
any merit.
5. The impugned order is quite detailed, well reasoned and does
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The notices had been put on
official website of the Commission and petitioner should have been
vigilant enough to watch those on the official website. His negligence and
callousness cannot be rewarded by giving him another chance for scrutiny
of his documents and participating in the selection process, which has
since been completed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on
account of suffering from dental problem and looking after his wife, who
was in family way, the petitioner could not appear for scrutiny of
4 of 7
CWP-24910-2021(O&M) -5-
documents. This contention is self-contradictory inasmuch as on one hand
the petitioner is saying that he was not aware of the dates fixed for
scrutiny of documents and on the other hand, he is saying that on account
of his wife being in family way requiring complete bed rest and being
looked after by him and on account of dental surgery, he could not appear
for scrutiny of documents. It seems that petitioner has invented such
reasons to offer some plausible reason for his failure to appear before the
Commission on the original date and extended dates for scrutiny of
documents. He cannot possibly succeed by taking such type of pleas,
which are nothing but empty excuses.
7. Another argument put forward by learned counsel for the
petitioner was that the Commission should have notified the dates of
scrutiny of documents in the newspapers, which it did not do, therefore
the petitioner could not become aware of the dates and could not appear
before the Commission for scrutiny of documents. Again I do not find
myself in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard.
8. As regards Clause 9 in the advertisement in question, copy
Annexure P11 pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, which for
ready reference is as under:
9. No individual information at any stage shall be sent
and hence all candidates should regularly visit the Website &
Public Notices in different Newspapers.
9. That rather goes against the case of the petitioner. The
petitioner was not required to be informed individually with regard to the
dates fixed for scrutiny. This condition no where provides that the
5 of 7
CWP-24910-2021(O&M) -6-
Commission was required to notify the results in different newspapers
rather the candidates should have been aware that they should regularly
visit the website of the Commission and public notices in different
newspapers. Inserting the notices on the official website of the
Commission meets the necessary requirement. In today's world where
paperless work is being encouraged and more and more things are tried to
be done electronically and digitally, the petitioner want to take advantage
of his own negligence and callousness, he cannot be allowed to do so.
10. As regards the judgment Sarup Singh Versus The Punjab
State Agricultural Marketing Board passed by Single Judge of this Court
in CWP No.856 of 1988, that judgment does not help the petitioner in any
manner due to the different facts and circumstances and the context in
which such observations had been made.
11. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned here that merely by
clearing written test does not bestow any valuable right upon any
candidate unless the entire process is complete by way of scrutinizing
relevant documents including educational qualifications, certificate with
regard to category under which the candidate had applied and seeing the
economic status of a person etc. The petitioner in this case has just cleared
the written test, whereas not participating in the process of scrutiny of
documents. Therefore, non-mentioning of his name in the list of selected
candidates cannot leave him aggrieved. As rightly observed in the
impugned order if prayer of the petitioner is allowed that may open the
pandora-box and several other candidates may approach the Court with
similar prayer, in the end nullifying the selection process, which in this
6 of 7
CWP-24910-2021(O&M) -7-
case has already been completed.
12. Even otherwise, a writ is to be issued in exceptional cases
and not in routine. Here I do not find any reason to exercise such power.
13. The instant writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
9.12.2021 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
