Navita Rani vs State Of Haryana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1630 P&H

118.

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                  CWP-5167-2022
                                  Date of Decision: 15.03.2022

                                  (Heard through VC)

NAVITA RANI                                                     .... Petitioner

                                  Versus



STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                                    .... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR


Present:-    Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG, Haryana.
                               ----

JAISHREE THAKUR.J (Oral)

1. The petitioner, who has participated in the selection process for

appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Female) of Group C of the Haryana

Police, pursuant to advertisement No.3 of 2021, category No.02, seeks

additional 5 marks to be given as per clause 2.3 Criteria for selection (Annexure

P-1).

2. In brief, the facts are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement

No.3 of 2021, dated 15.06.2021 inviting applications for filling up 65 posts of

Sub Inspector (Female). The selection process was mentioned in the said

advertisement and as per clause 2.3 Criteria for selection, additional marks were

to be given in case the applicant is a widow; first or the second child and father

had died before attaining the age of 42 years; applicant is the first or the

1 of 6

second child and father had died before the applicant had attained the age of 15

years.

3. The petitioner, who belongs to a BCA category, applied under the

said category and also applied for grant of 5 additional weightage marks as per

clause 2.3, being a fatherless child. The petitioner was then issued an admit card

and allotted the roll number 3212028557. After having appeared for the

examination, the result was declared and the petitioner was then called for the

physical screening test which was to be held on 11.10.2021 to 13.10.2021. The

petitioner cleared the physical measurement test and thereafter, scrutiny of

documents was conducted. The petitioner stood second in the BCA category in

the final result with the cut off marks being 64.20. As per the result, the

petitioner had secured 68.20 marks (63.20 marks for the written examination

and 5 marks under clause 2.3 being a fatherless child under the socio-economic

criteria). However, on the revised result prepared and published, the marks of

the petitioner were reduced and she has now been kept in the waiting list in the

BCA category.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would

submit, that 5 marks that were allocated to the petitioner under clause 2.3 have

wrongfully been withdrawn and that she is entitled to the same. It is contended

that though she is a third child, none of the siblings i.e. first child or the second

child of her parents have availed of any socio-economic benefit, which benefit

should be allowed to her in this selection. It is submitted that the eldest sister of

the petitioner is a mentally challenged child and had studied upto 5 th class and

her second sister being married has never applied for any government job. The

petitioner was 13 years old when her father had died at the age of 39 years and

2 of 6

therefore, deduction of 5 marks, which was initially granted to the petitioner on

account of being a fatherless child, is unsustainable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find no merit in

the instant petition. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. It is an

admitted fact that pursuant to the advertisement No.3 of 2021, dated

15.06.2021, the petitioner herein applied for recruitment to the post of Sub

Inspector (Female) in BCA category as unmarried woman and undertook

written examination. Having cleared the same, she also qualified the physical

test and was eventually awarded 68.20 marks, which on revision was reduced to

63.20 marks. The reduction of 5 marks which were allocated to her on the basis

of being a fatherless child under clause 2.3, is under challenge.

6. Clause 2.3 which is a criteria for selection, examination and

syllabus specifies that 80 marks will be allocated for knowledge test and

physical screening test. Additional 10 marks would be given for education and

NCC, whereas additional 10 marks would be given under the category as

enumerated below:-

"Miscellaneous (10% weightage):- (10Marks)

(a) (i) Five (05) marks shall be given if neither the applicant nor any person from among the applicant's father, mother, spouse, brother, and Son is, was or has been a regular employee in any Department/ Board/Corporation/ Company/Statutory Body/ Commission/ Authority of Government of Haryana or any other State Government or Government of India.

(ii) Five (05) marks shall be given, if the applicant is:-

(i) a widow; or

(ii) the first or the second child and his father had

3 of 6

died before attaining the age of 42 years: or

(iii) the first or the second child and his father had died before the applicant had attained the age of 15 years,".

(iii) Five (05) marks will be given, if the applicant belongs to such a denotified tribe (Vimukt Jatis and Tapriwas Jatis) or Nomadic tribe of Haryana which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a Backward Class.

(iv) Maximum of Eight (08) marks have been kept for experience as an adhoc or contract employee. One-half (=0.5) mark for each year or part thereof exceeding six months of experience, out of a maximum of 16 years, on the same or a higher post in any Department, Board, Corporation, Company, Statutory Body, Commission, Authority of Government of Haryana. No marks will be awarded for any period less than six months:

Provided that no applicant will be given more than ten marks under any circumstances for (i) to (iv) above.

(b) Claim of reservation benefit and/or relaxation etc., if any, shall be admissible to those candidates only, who submit the requisite valid original certificate for scrutiny alongwith their application in support of their claim failing which, they will be considered under general category provided they are otherwise eligible. Information in this regard will be displayed on official website of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.

Note Claim under Socio-economic criteria, if any, shall be admissible to candidates of Haryana domicile only, and to those who would fill the details of the requisite certificate i.e. name of issuing authority, date of issue and reference no. etc and also upload the requisite valid original document along with their application in support of the

4 of 6

claim failing which no certification benefits shall be considered after last date of filing online application."

A reading of the said clause makes it abundantly clear that additional 5 marks

would have been allowed to a fatherless child, if the applicant was either the

first or the second child born to a person who had died before he had attained

the age of 42 years or in case such father had died before the applicant had

attained the age of 15 years. The fact that the applicant herein is a third child is

not in dispute and, therefore, would not have been entitled to the grant of 5

additional marks. The argument raised that first or the second child, that means

that the elder siblings of the petitioner, had not availed of the benefit, as one

was mentally challenged and the other had got married, is not sustainable, in

view of the specific conditions as laid down in the advertisement which does

not mention that the third child can avail of the benefit in case the benefit of

additional marks is not availed of by the first or the second sibling. Once the

terms and conditions for grant of additional weightage were made abundantly

clear in the advertisement itself and there is no ambiguity in the same, having

participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot turn around and now

seek a benefit which is not admissible under the said advertisement.

7. The law in this regard is very clear wherein it has been held that a

candidate is not entitled to challenge the criteria of process of selection having

participated in the same. Reliance is placed on a judgment rendered in Manish

Kumar Shahi Versus State of Bihar and others-(2010) 12 Supreme Court

Cases 576, wherein it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to

challenge the criteria or process of selection after having participated in it. The

petitioner was well aware of the criteria in the advertisement inviting

5 of 6

applications for the post of Sub Inspectors by the Haryana Staff Selection

Committee, and on what basis a person could claim 5 additional marks on

account of her socio-economic status. Clause 2.3 of the Criteria for selection

examination and syllabus of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) specifically

mentions that 80 marks is towards knowledge test with additional weightage of

10 marks for additional qualification such as education, NCC etc. and 10 marks

towards socio-economic status of the applicant. Only the first or the second

fatherless child would be entitled to claim the benefit under the criteria of the

advertisement, which cannot be allowed to the petitioner herein on account of

her being the third child, even if the first two have not taken any benefit. The

criteria cannot be interpreted as per the convenience of the petitioner.

8. The Commission has rightly rejected the candidature of the

petitioner and this Court too does not find any ground for interference. The writ

petition is dismissed accordingly.

                                                 (JAISHREE THAKUR)
                                                        JUDGE
15.03.2022
sanjeev
             Whether speaking/reasoned:        Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:               Yes/No




                                 6 of 6