Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Staff Selection ... vs Yogender Kumar And Another on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 688 of 2020 (O & M)
Reserved on: 24.05.2022
Date of decision: 06.07.2022
232
Haryana Staff Selection Commission ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Yogender Kumar and another ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for the appellant.
Mr. R.K. Doon, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
The present letters patent appeal filed by the State is directed
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 3176
of 2019, Yogender Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another decided on
15.01.2020.
Vide the impugned judgment, directions were issued to
recommend the case of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) for
appointment within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the
order and thereafter, the Education Department was to issue appointment
letters within next 15 days. The benefit of notional promotion from the date
persons junior to him had been appointed alongwith all consequential
benefits was also granted.
The learned Single Judge had granted the said benefit on the
ground that the writ petitioner was an applicant for the post of PGT
1 of 7
Mathematics under the BCA category and had secured 115 marks whereas
the last candidate selected had secured 100 marks. Keeping in view the fact
that one post had already been reserved vide order dated 04.02.2019 and the
petitioner had secured higher marks in the said category, the objection as
such of the respondent-Commission that he had not attached the certificate
of M.Sc. and HTET alongwith his application form was over ruled. It was
noticed that he was an eligible candidate at the time of interview and as per
the attendance sheet (Annexure R-2/1), he appeared for interview on
09.11.2016 and the certificates had also been sent through e-mail on
25.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) and he had qualified earlier to the cut off date
and not that he had qualified subsequently and, therefore, his candidature
was not liable to be rejected.
Counsel for the appellant-Commission has vehemently
submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the said
relief. The writ petitioner was bound by the terms of the advertisement
which had provided that the necessary documents had to be uploaded and
the said certificates were part of the essential qualifications and, therefore,
the Commission was well justified in not showing him as eligible candidate
in the final result which was declared on 12.01.2019 (Annexure P-6). It has
further been submitted that he had not appeared to produce the said
certificate and remained absent on 04.10.2017 (Annexure R-2/2).
Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent, on the other hand,
has submitted that the petitioner had duly appeared in the interview on
09.11.2016 and had been shown eligible as such as per Annexure R-2/1 and
the certificate submitted by him was of October, 2010 i.e. well before the
2 of 7
cut off date of 21.09.2015 and which had further been extended till
12.10.2015. It is submitted that there was mention made in the form which
was uploaded of M.Sc. Mathematics and all the details of the marks
obtained which would be clear from Annexure P-3 and considering that he
has been declared eligible, he had been duly interviewed. In response to
make good the deficiency as such, if any, he had sent his certificate on
25.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) to the Secretary of the Education Department
by e-mail as such and since it was the obligation of the respondent also to
have kept a copy of the certificate on the date of interview, the benefit
granted by the learned Single Judge was justified. It is further pointed out
that even a seat was kept reserved on 04.02.2019 and the petitioner has
secured much more marks than the candidates who had qualified and had
secured only 100 marks as per the last selected candidate in his category.
A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the
advertisement in question dated 28.06.2015 (Annexure P-1) invited
applications for PGT Mathematics for 125 posts of BCA category. The
requisite qualifications was M.A. Mathematics/M.Sc. Mathematics/Applied
Mathematics with Mathematics as one of the subjects at graduation level
with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from a recognized category. The
requirement of the HTET in the respective subject for the post applied was
relaxable to the extent that they could have passed the said test till the date
of the interview after the advertisement. The writ petitioner had accordingly
applied for the said post as per his application form and has specifically
mentioned that he was not qualified for HTET. He gave the details of the
marks obtained in the other qualifications including his result of B.Sc. with
3 of 7
Mathematics and B.Ed. For the M.Sc. Mathematics, it was specifically
mentioned that he had obtained 535 marks out of 1000 marks. The said
certificate alongwith other certificates have also been appended
alongwith the writ petition, which would go on to show that it was issued
on 14.10.2010 by the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Thus, it was
well before the cut off date of 12.10.2015. He obtained his certificate in
HTET examination which was held on 18.06.2016, which was valid till
31.07.2021 and issued on 25.07.2016, which is subsequent to the cut off
date. But in view of the fact that there was a condition that the same could
be obtained till the date of interview, he was apparently held eligible. It is
not disputed that he was called for scrutiny of documents-cum-interview for
the post of PGT Mathematics vide admit card (Annexure P-4) on
09.11.2016. The attendance sheet also would go on to show that his
presence was recorded wherein, he was held eligible and secondly the
details of his marks in M.Sc. i.e. 535 out of 1000 marks were also
mentioned in the requisite column. Marks obtained in the HTET exam
which were 96 out of 150 were also specifically mentioned apart from the
details of the other marks obtained from matric, 10+2, graduation and B.Ed.
etc. Thus, he was interviewed only on the strength of the said documents
and it is not disputed that he secured 115 marks. It is his specific case that
he was asked telephonically that the M.Sc. Degree was needed and
accordingly, he had sent both his M.Sc. Degree as well as HTET certificate
on the e-mail of the Secretary of the Commission on 25.12.2016.
The said facts have not been denied in the written statement by
the Commission which has filed a short reply. In paragraph 6, details have
4 of 7
been mentioned regarding the absence of the writ petitioner for further
scrutiny of documents on account of the notice issued on 22.09.2017 and
20.09.2018. Apparently, when the result was declared on 12.01.2019
(Annexure P-6), the writ petitioner found that for the said category, the cut
off was 100 and his name did not find mention. Resultantly, he approached
this Court by filing the writ petition and one post was reserved for him on
04.02.2019 by noting the said fact that he had secured 100 marks in the
written examination, which was the same as the cut off. The result was
ordered to be produced on the next date and was done so on 09.05.2019 and
scrutinized by the learned Single Judge and it was noticed that he secured
15 marks in interview and, therefore, had a grand total of 115. It is, thus,
apparent that the writ petitioner had secured more marks than the last
selected candidate. Once he had appeared in the interview, it was the
bounden duty as such of the State to have kept all the documents at that
point of time and it was also a bounden duty to interview him only after
scrutinizing his documents. Having not kept copies of the relevant
documents at that point of time, the State now cannot fall back on the
ground that the certificate as such was not uploaded at that point of time. It
has been held time and again that a candidate has to be held eligible before
the cut off date and the learned Single Judge has rightly as such come to the
conclusion. On account of having secured higher marks and his seat having
been reserved, he was entitled for consideration for appointment. Reliance
can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda vs.
Chairman, JEE (2005) 9 SCC 779 wherein, the certificate was not issued
in a proper form by the Sainik Zila Board and the Apex Court held that it
5 of 7
was a case of domain of procedure as such and having secured higher
marks, the candidate was liable to be selected. The relevant portion reads
thus:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying for
any course of study or a post, a person must possess the
eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such
purpose either in the admission brochure or in
application form, as the case may be, unless there is an
express provision to the contrary. There can be no
relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the
requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This
has to be established by producing the necessary
certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order
to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc.
necessary certificates have to be produced. These are
documents in the nature of proof of holding of
particular qualification or percentage of marks secured
or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending
upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in
the matter of submission of proof and it will not be
proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the
domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule
relating to submission of proof need not necessarily
result in rejection of candidature."
The said observations would also be directly applicable as
would be in the observations made in Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board & another (2016) 4 SCC 754
wherein also, a similar view was taken.
Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the learned
Single Judge has not erred in any manner by granting the necessary relief
since the details of the marks obtained had already been mentioned and the
6 of 7
necessary certificate of M.Sc. was also issued which was well before the cut
off date.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same
stands dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
6.7.2022 (VIKAS SURI)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
