Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 14 November, 2022
CWP No.17499 of 2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17499 of 2017 (O&M)
Reserved on:27.10.2022
Date of Decision.14.11.2022.
Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
-.-
JAISHREE THAKUR J.
1. The petitioner herein approached this Court under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a direction to the
respondents to award marks to the petitioner for his higher qualification
and offer him appointment to the post of Male Constable (General Duty)
under BCB Category.
2. In brief, facts as culled out from the petition are that the petitioner
had applied to the post of Male Constable (General Duty) under BCB
Category in pursuance to advertisement No.8/2015 issued by respondent
No.3 vide application submitted on the online portal of the respondent-
Commission on 03.10.2015. The petitioner appeared for the written test
on 28.08.2016 and obtained 33.30 marks out of 60 marks. The written
examination consisted of 100 questions and each correct answer carried
1 of 10
0.60 marks whereas for every wrong answer 0.15 marks were to be
deducted. After publication of answer key, the petitioner matched his
answers with the same and found that answer key in respect of questions
No.40 and 73 was incorrect. The petitioner raised objections along with
supporting material in respect of aforesaid questions but the respondent-
Commission did not consider the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was
called for the Physical Measurement Test and for scrutiny of documents.
After scrutiny of documents, the petitioner was called for interview on
13.06.2017 for which he duly appeared. However, the petitioner was
shocked to find out that no marks were awarded to him for higher
educational qualification i.e. his post graduation degree. He submitted
representation dated 13.06.2017 itself to respondent No.3 for awarding
one mark to him for his aforesaid higher qualification but no action was
taken thereon. The final result was declared by the respondent-
Commission on 16.07.2017, according to which petitioner had secured
60.30 marks, however, in the recommendation list published by the
respondent No.3, name of the petitioner did not find mention. Thereafter,
notice dated 17.07.2017 was issued by respondent No.3 wherein final cut
off for the last selected candidate in BCB category was shown as 61.90
marks. Therefore, if one mark is awarded to the petitioner for his higher
qualification and 1.20 marks are awarded for two wrong answers and the
marks deducted for giving wrong answers are also added i.e. 0.30 marks,
the total of the petitioner would come to Rs.62.80 marks, which is much
higher than the last selected candidate in the BCB category. In this
regard, petitioner visited respondent No.3-Commission a number of times
2 of 10
and also submitted another representation dated 21.07.2017 but no action
has been taken by the respondent No.3 thereon. Aggrieved against the
said action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble
Court by way of instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
admittedly the petitioner had obtained the higher qualification of post
graduation i.e. Master of Business Administration from the Global Open
University on 10.04.2015 whereas he had applied for the post in question
on 03.10.2015 as is evident from application form submitted on the online
portal of the respondent No.3-Commisssion. There was no option on the
online portal for submitting the mark sheet of higher qualification, so the
petitioner uploaded only the certificate upto graduation level. However,
at the time of scrutiny of documents, petitioner had duly furnished his
post graduation degree, which was not taken into consideration. Even on
the date of interview i.e. 13.06.2017, petitioner duly represented to
respondent No.3 that at the time of documents verification, he had
attached photocopy of post graduation mark sheets but marks for the same
has not been granted to him and therefore, requested that requisite marks
be awarded to him for the same. It is further submitted that according to
petitioner, answer key qua two questions i.e. questions No.40 and 73 was
wrong and if marks for said questions are awarded to the petitioner as
well as marks for the higher qualification, he would fall within the zone of
consideration for appointment to the post of Male Constable (General
Duty). It is argued that during the pendency of the instant writ petition,
almost 180 candidates appointed to the post of Male Constable (General
3 of 10
Duty) have either resigned or not joined. Accordingly, the Director
General of Police, Haryana vide letter dated 14.09.2020 issued to
respondent No.3-Commission, asked the respondent-Commission to fill
up the said vacant posts from the waiting list. As per the waiting list, two
candidates namely Akashdeep and Gautam, who has secured 61.25 marks
have been recommended for appointment to the post of Male Constable
and if only one mark for higher educational qualification is awarded to the
petitioner herein, he would be entitled for appointment to the post in
question.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that
the respondent-Commission vide its resolution dated 20.06.2017 has
unanimously resolved to consider the claims of all such candidates, who
have not claimed/produced the evidence of educational qualification at the
time of filing the applications but claimed/produced documents relating to
educational qualifications/NCC certificates at the time of scrutiny of
documents with immediate effect. He relies upon the judgment passed by
this Court in CWP No.17449 of 2017 titled as Jaideep Vs. State of
Haryana and others decided on 16.01.2019 wherein the petitioner, who
had applied for the post of Male Constable under same advertisement as
in the instant petition and produced his NCC B certificate at the time of
interview, was awarded two marks for the same and therefore, the
petitioner herein in the similar circumstances, is also entitled for one
mark for his higher educational qualification.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
would submit that the petitioner did not mention about his post graduation
4 of 10
degree at the time of filling up the application. He had not even claimed
marks for his post graduation qualification at the time of interview and
mentioned 'N' in the column of post graduation marks and therefore, he is
not entitled for one mark for the said higher qualification. In support of
his argument, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in The State of Bihar and others Vs. Madhu Kant
Ranjan and another 2022 (1) SCT 223 wherein it was held that only
those documents, which are submitted along with application form and
which are required to be submitted as per advertisement have to be
considered. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered
by this Court in Neeraj Rani Vs. State of Haryana and another 2014 (3)
SCT 347 where the claim of the petitioner for JBT post was rejected by
holding that the petitioner therein did not apply for the post before the
closing date and result of JBT course declared after closing date for
making application and therefore, the petitioner was not held entitled to
get any benefit from a corrigendum notice issued in terms of directions of
High Court providing that the candidates who acquired STET certificate
after the cut-off date shall be treated eligible. It is further argued that as
regards the wrong answer key, objections were invited from the aggrieved
candidates on e-mail of the respondent Commission from 09.06.2017 to
11.06.2017 and since the petitioner submitted his objections vide e-mail
dated 27.07.2017 i.e. much beyond the stipulated period, his objections
were not required to be considered. The attempt of the petitioner in
submitting the objections was nothing but an attempt to stall the selection
process.
5 of 10
6. To rebut the argument of the counsel appearing for the respondent-
State, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the
time of interview, the petitioner was provided a pro forma which was
already filled by the officials on duty and therefore, he had no option but
to sign the same. On the same very day i.e. the date of interview, the
petitioner represented to the respondent-Commission for awarding marks
for higher qualification of post graduation as he had submitted the marks-
sheet in respect of the same at the time of scrutiny of documents and
therefore, his claim ought to have been considered by the respondent-
Commission, which it failed to do. He relied upon the judgment passed
by this Court in CWP No.14940 of 2020 titled as Sushil Vs. State of
Haryana and another decided on 21.09.2020 in which case petitioner had
obtained a detailed mark-sheet of his post graduation done in Computer
Science on 25.07.2018, which was before the cut off date i.e. 28.05.2018
and therefore, the Commission was directed to take into consideration
detailed mark-sheet of the petitioner. Similarly, reliance was placed upon
judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.23175 of 2017 titled as Vikash
Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 08.10.2018 wherein the
petitioner, who had obtained higher qualification before the cut-off date
was held entitled for 1 mark for the same.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
pleadings of the case as well as the case laws cited.
8. As regards the argument of the counsel appearing for the petitioner
regarding awarding for marks for questions No.40 and 73 is liable to be
rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to raise objections to the
6 of 10
same within the stipulated period i.e. between 09.06.2017 to 11.06.2017.
The other limb of argument of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner
is entitled for one mark for his higher qualification, owing to the fact that
candidates, whose names are recommended for appointment from the
waiting list under BCB Category, have secured 61.25 marks and if one
mark is awarded to the petitioner, his total score would reach to 61.30
marks, he would be entitled for appointment to the post of Male Constable
(General Duty). However, the aforesaid argument of the petitioner is
subject to consideration whether the petitioner would be entitled for said
one mark when he did not submit the mark-sheet of his MBA degree at
the time of submitting application on the online portal of respondent No.3,
though at the time of scrutiny of documents he furnished all mark-sheets
and also represented on the day of interview that marks for higher
qualification of post graduation be awarded to him. The argument of the
petitioner that he could not mention that he had additional qualification, as
there was no column in the online application form to do so, needs
consideration. The online application form as appended for the
recruitment year of 2015 asked the candidate to fill in the following
qualification:
Qualification Degree University/ Passing Medium Marks Total Percent- Class Roll
Board Year Obtained marks age No.
Name
Matric
HSC
Graduation
In fact, a reading of the aforesaid table would show that there was
no column for filling in details of post graduation qualification. If there
7 of 10
was no column for mentioning additional qualifications, the petitioner
cannot be faulted as such.
9. The submission of the petitioner that on the date of the interview, he
had supplied the post graduation marks sheet to the committee, is borne
out from the record of the respondent Commission itself as the said
document obtained from the respondent-Commission under RTI Act has
been placed on the record of these proceedings by the petitioner. Even the
attendance sheet as appended with the written statement as Annexure
R3/3, reflects that the Commission had already prepared the attendance
sheet and given appropriate marks and the marks are typed as well. 'N' is
typed in the column meant for marks for post graduation. As such, the
Commission did not give due consideration to the post graduation marks
sheet of the petitioner made available to them at the time of the interview,
depriving him of the additional mark for higher qualification.
10. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for one mark
for his higher qualification as admittedly, the petitioner had cleared his
fourth semester examination of MBA from the Global Open University on
10.04.2015 as is evident from the mark-sheet i.e. much before applying
for the post in question i.e. on 03.10.2015. The petitioner had duly
submitted the mark-sheets of all the four semesters of MBA at the time of
scrutiny of documents, which ought to have been taken into consideration
by respondent No.3-Commission. Reliance of the counsel appearing for
the respondent-State on the judgment passed in Neeraj Rani's case
(supra) is of no help, as in that case the petitioner had obtained the
essential qualification of JBT course after the closing date, therefore, in
8 of 10
such an eventuality, this Court had rejected the claim of the petitioner in
that case. But in the instant case, the petitioner had acquired the degree of
post graduation before the closing date and therefore, he would be entitled
for one mark of his higher qualification.
11. The argument of the counsel appearing for the respondent-State
that only those certificates will be taken into consideration, which were
submitted at the time of submission of the application form (reliance
placed on judgment rendered in Madhu Kant Ranjan's case (supra)), also
fails, as in respect of same very advertisement, CWP No.17749 of 2017
titled as Jaideep Vs. State of Haryana and others was preferred where in
the reply filed by the respondent-Commission, reference was made to
resolution dated 20.06.2017 whereby it was unanimously resolved that
claims of all such candidates, who have not claimed/produced the
evidence of educational qualifications, NCC certificates etc. but are
claiming/producing documents relating to education qualifications, NCC
certificates etc. at the time of scrutiny of documents/interview/viva voce
will be considered with immediate effect. This Court while allowing the
aforesaid writ petition awarded three marks and ordered the Commission
to offer appointment to the petitioner therein, if otherwise found eligible.
This very court itself dealt with issue in Sushil's case (supra) wherein the
petitioner had obtained a detailed mark-sheet of his post graduation done
in Computer Science on 25.07.2018, which was before the cut off date i.e.
28.05.2018, subsequently extended by a public notice to 25.10.2018 and
therefore, a direction was issued to the respondent-Commission to
9 of 10
consider the detailed mark sheet of the petitioner and if found in order,
allocate him necessary marks.
12. In view of the aforesaid findings rendered by this Court, the instant
petition is allowed. It is an admitted fact that one post had been ordered to
be kept vacant by the court vide order dated 6.11.2020. The respondent
No.3-Commission is directed to consider the post-graduation mark sheets
of the petitioner and award him 1 mark as per the criteria laid down in the
advertisement dated 19.07.2015 and if otherwise found eligible, offer him
appointment letter for the post of Male Constable (General Duty) under
BCB category. He will also be allowed all consequential benefits like
seniority etc, taking his date of appointment to be that when person of
same merit were appointed.
13. However, in case the petitioner is found ineligible and his case is to
be rejected, let a speaking order be passed in that regard. Let this
exercise be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
November 14, 2022
Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
