Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
CWP-16536-2023 and other connected cases 1
2023:PHHC:101099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(108) CWP-16536-2023
Date of Decision : August 04, 2023
Rahul .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(108-2) CWP-16537-2023
Nitesh Kumar and another .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(108-3) CWP-16549-2023
Ajay Kumar and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(109) CWP-16620-2023
Sandeep Kumar and another .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
1 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
(110) CWP-16623-2023
Ajay .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(111) CWP-16632-2023
Parveen and another .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(112) CWP-16634-2023
Anil Kumar and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(113) CWP-16647-2023
Parveen Kumar and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(114) CWP-16651-2023
Pankaj Kumar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
2 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
(120) CWP-16898-2023
Satyapal and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(125) CWP-16912-2023
Angrej .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(127) CWP-16918-2023
Anirudh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(129) CWP-16921-2023
Ismile Khan and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(130) CWP-16924-2023
Sanjay Kadian and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
3 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
(131) CWP-16925-2023
Ahmed .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(132) CWP-16946-2023
Madhu .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
(133) CWP-17042-2023
Devender and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Ankur Sidhar, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP Nos.16536, 16549, 16632, 16634, 16912 and
16924 of 2023.
Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP No.16537 of 2023 and CWP No.17042 of 2023.
Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP Nos.16620 and 16925 of 2023.
Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
in CWP Nos.16623, 16647, 16651, 16898, 16918 and 16921
of 2023.
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP No.16946 of 2023.
4 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana with
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
By this common order, a bunch of writ petitions, the details of
which have been given in the heading, are being decided wherein, the merit
list prepared on the basis of the Common Eligibility Test undertaken by the
State of Haryana is under challenge as well as the consequent process
undertaken by the respondent-State for making appointment to various posts
of Group-C Cadre as advertised vide advertisement dated 07.03.2023.
The State of Haryana issued a notification on 05.05.2022 by
which, the policy for the recruitment to Group-C and D through Common
Eligibility Test, 2022 was formulated. As per the said policy, a Common
Eligibility Test was to be held for Group C and D post which was to be
conducted by Haryana Staff Selection Commission or any other Agency as
decided by the Government. The marks obtained in the Common Eligibility
Test were described as "CET Marks". As per the policy, a candidate in order
to clear the Common Eligibility Test, belonging to General Category, was
required to have minimum 50% marks in the said Common Eligibility Test
whereas, for the reserved category, the same was 40%.
A candidate who clears the elgibility test, was further entitiled
for weightage under socio economic criteria if claimed and admissible for
which, extra marks was to be added to the marks obtained by a candidate in
CET, which final score of the candidate concerned is described as CET
score as per the notification dated 05.05.2022. On the basis of said CET
score, ultimate merit of the candidates, who appear in the Common
Eligibility Test, is prepared, which merit list is the basis for a candidate to
apply for Group-C and D posts apart from the other eligibility criteria which
5 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
may be prescribed for a particular post for which a candidate is competing
for.
The Common Eligibility Test was held on 05/06.11.2022 by the
Haryana Public Service Commission. The result of the same was declared
on 10.01.2023, which announced the CET score of a candidate and the merit
list of all the candidates, who appeared in the Common Eligibility Test,
which merit list was to be taken into consideration while undertaking the
process of making appointment to various Group-C and D posts.
On 01.02.2023, the Commission issued a public notice that in
case any candidate has wrongly raised a claim with regard to the grant of
marks under the socio economic criteria and the same has been allowed in
their favour, the said claim should be withdrawn failing which, the
candidature of the defaulting candidates will be summarily rejected.
A similar notice was again published by the respondent on
10.03.2023.
It may be noticed that the respondent-Commission issued the
advertisement on 07.03.2023 advertising various posts which posts were to
be filled up on the basis of written examination to be conducted in case the
candidate fulfills the required Eligibility conditions prescribed in the said
advertisement.
In the said advertisement, as per Clause 7, the candidates who
were to be called for interview, were from the merit list as prepared on the
basis of CET score of the candidates and the number of candidates to be
called for written test to be held for selection in pursuance to the
advertisement was restricted. In case the number of posts advertised in a
particular cadre is less than 30, then the candidates equal to five times
number of posts of advertisement were to be called keeping in view their
6 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
merit prepared on the basis of CET score. If the posts are more than 40, then
candidates equal to four times number of posts advertised were to be called
for competing for the post as advertised on 07.03.2023.
This shows that the CET score is the basis for process to be
undertaken for selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated
07.03.2023. The CET score of a candidate obtained in the Common
Eligibility Test which will include the marks in the written examination in
the Common Eligibility Test plus any weightage given to the said candidate
is the basis so as to decide as to whether a particular candidate will be
eligible to compete for the posts as advertised on 07.03.2023.
The merit list prepared on the basis of CET score announced by
the respondent-Commission of the candidates who appeared in the Common
Eligibility Test, was challenged by the candidates before this Court by filing
CWP No.11370 of 2023. In the said petition, the grievance was that the
respondent-Commission is going ahead in making the selection to the
various posts in pursuance to the advertisment dated 07.03.2023 without
redressing the grievance of the candidates that the merit list prepared on the
basis of Common Eligibility Test has been prepared by giving weightage of
extra marks under socio economic criteria in CET score to certain
candidates, who were not entitiled for the said benefit and the said action is
causing prejudice to them. Respondent-Commission undertook before this
Court that the Commission has taken a conscious decision to postpone the
written exam which was scheduled to be held on 01.07.2023 in pursuance to
the advertisement dated 07.03.2023 till the revised result of the Common
Eligibility Test is finalised and uploaded.
Thereafter, once again, another notice was issued by the
Commission on 28.06.2023 asking the candidates who have been given
7 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
marks under the socio economic criteria as to whether, they wish to
withdraw the said claim so that the CET score could be re-finalized so as to
be used for the purpose of initiating the process for selecting the candidates
in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.03.2023.
The said writ petition came up for consideration before this
Court on 24.07.2023 on which date, learned State counsel again submitted
that the revised final result of the Common Eligibility Test will be declared
within a period of 2-3 weeks and only thereafter, the selection process will
be initiated qua the advertisement dated 07.03.2023. On the basis of said
undertaking given, the said writ petition was disposed of having been not
pressed any further.
On the very next day i.e. on 25.07.2023, the respondents again
published the revised CET score, which is the merit list, which was to be
made operational for the process of making selection to the posts which
were advertised vide advertisement dated 07.03.2023.
After declaring the revised CET score, the respondents fixed
the date for holding written examination in pursuance to the advertisement
dated 07.03.2023 i.e. on 05-06.08.2023 for Group 56 and 57.
The present petitions have been filed raising two fold
grievances. Firstly that without verifying the claim of the candidates qua the
award of weightage under the socio economic crieteria, the CET score has
been re-finalized vide revised merit list dated 25.07.2023 which is not
correct, as till the certificates given by the candidates to claim the said
benefit are verified by the agency, benefit of the same cannot be given as
the same is causing prejudice to the other candidates. Further, the grievance
is raised that though certain candidates have already withdrawn their claim
for marks under the socio economic crieteria but in the revised merit list,
8 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
they still have been given the same marks while preparing the CET score
which shows that the CET score, as released on 25.07.2023, is without any
application of mind and is not correct in the facts and circumstances of the
present case and cannot be relied upon for undertaking the process of
selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.03.2023.
The second grievance is that even while calling the candidates
for written test, revised merit is also not being adhere to as certain
candidates who have higher marks have not been called whereas the
candidates having lower CET score has been called.
Keeping in view the advance copy given, learned counsel for
the Commission appeared on 01.08.2023 and sought time to consider the
objections being raised by the petitioners qua the preparation of the revised
merit list (CET score) which is being made basis for calling the candidates
for written test to be held in pursuance to the advertisement dated
07.03.2023 and the case was adjourned to 04.08.2023.
No written reply has been filed by the respondent-Commission
but learned Advocate General, Haryana submits that his oral submissions
may kindly be taken into consideration for deciding the issue as the matter
is urgent keeping in view the fact that the written test for Group 56 and 57,
to be conducted in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.03.2023 is
scheduled for tomorrow and day after tomorrow i.e. 05/06/08.2023.
Learned Advocate General Haryana appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Commission submits that though, marks for socio economic
criteria have been given to the candidates on the basis of the documents
attached by them but the said documents have not been verified so as to
establish what the said candidates are actually entitled for the said marks
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the candidates concerned
9 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
qua factual aspect and qua the genuinity of the said documents attached to
claim the benefit.
Learned Advocate General, Haryana concedes to the fact as has
already come on record, that certain candidates who had claimed the benefit
of extra marks against the weightage given under socio economic criteria
though they were not entitled for the same and submits that it was for this
reason why the options were given to them to withdraw their bogus claims
and that certain candidates have withdrawn their claims as well. He further
submits that the Commission has not verified the veracity of the documents
and the other necessary facts pertaining to valid candidature of each
candidate as there are large number of candidates who appeared in CET
who had submitted their documents to claim extra marks against weightage
given under socio economic criteria and also because of the fact that there is
very short time at this stage to do the same as written examination had
already been scheduled by the respondent-Commission for 05/06.08.2023.
Learned Advocate General, Haryana further submits that even
otherwise, if a candidate has wrongly claimed the benefit of extra marks
given against the weightage under socio economic criteria and appears in
the examination to be held on 05/06.08.2023, his/her candidature will be
cancelled at the later stage when the doucments staking claim to the said
extra marks will be called to be submitted for the purpose of verification.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Before adverting to the merits of the claim being raised by the
petitioners and the defence being raised by the respondent-Commission, it
may be noticed that wherever the selection process has to be undertaken in
Government service, the same has to be fair, transparent and accountable.
10 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
Any irregularity in the process undertaken raises question as to whether the
process undertaken denies equal access as per the Constitution to all the
persons or not.
For the said view, the judment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Civil Appeal No.639-640 of 2021 titiled as Sachin Kumar and
others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and
others, decided on 03.03.2021, can be relied upon and relevant para of the
said judgment is as under:
"2. This judgment visits a familiar conumdrum in service
jurisprudence. The consitutional values which undergird
Articles 14 and 16 mandate that selection process conducted
by public authorities to make recruitments have to be fair,
transparent and accountable. All too often, human fallibillity
and foibles intrude into the selection process. Selection
involves intense competition and there is no dearth of
individuals who try and bend the rules to gain an unfair leap in
the race. Irregularities in the process give rise to misgivings
over whether the process has denied equal access to all
persons. The sanctity of the selection process comes under a
cloud."
Keeping in view the said settled principle of law, the grievance
being raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, needs to be
addressed as to whether, the selection process in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 07.03.2023 is being undertaken by the respondent-
Commission in a free, fair and transparent manner so as to give equal access
to all the candidates.
From the pleadings which have been noticed hereinbefore, it is
11 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
clear that the basis of selection process to be undertaken in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 07.03.2023 is the CET score obtained by the candidates
who appeared in the Common Eligibility Test which was held in pursuance
to the notification dated 05.05.2022. As per the selection criteria to be
adopted for making selection to the posts as advertised vide Advertisement
dated 07.03.2023, the candidates, who are to be called for written
examination has been limited keeping in view the number of posts
advertised and all the candidates who have cleared the CET test are not
entitiled to be called so as to participate for selection in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 07.03.2023. Once all the candidates who have cleared
the Common Eligibility Test will not get a chance to compete for the post
advertised vide advertisement dated 07.03.2023, it becomes
uncompromisable that the CET score/merit list is prepared in a manner
which shall not give rise to any irregularity or ambiguity so that all the
candidates have been given fair chance for evaluation of their claim to
participate in the examination being conducted in pursuance to
advertisement dated 07.03.2023. It is a matter of fact that even as per the
statement of learned Advocate General, Haryana, it cannot be ruled out that
certain inelilgible candidates have been given marks under the socio
economic criteria which is part of their CET score which has been taken
into account while fixing their merit as verification of the documents
submitted to stake claim qua the same is yet to be done.
Learned Advocate General, Haryana, further as mentioned
before conceded to the fact that when it came to the knowledge of the
respondent-Commission that certain candidates have attached certificates
claiming the benefit of extra marks under the socio economic criteria which
were either forged or were not issued by a competent authority, a notice was
12 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
published giving all the candidates a chance to withdraw their claim so that
revised merit list could be published. This fact itself shows that certain
candidates claim the benefit of extra marks under socio economic criteria
which benefit was given to them without verifying their documents.
No doubt, certain candidates have withdrawn their claim who
are not entitiled for said benefit of extra marks which were given to them
while computing their CET score but the fact remains that there is a
possibility that other candidates who were not entitled for the said extra
marks under socio economic criteria did not withdrew their claim as it has
been conceded by the learned Advocate General, Haryana that the veracity
of the claims of all the candidates appearing the merit list has not been
verified through perusal of the documents submitted by them.
In the light of the said fact it is evident that the process which
has been adopted by the respondent-Commission while issuing the revised
result i.e. CET score of all the candidates is neither transparent nor evokes
any confidence as to its fairness giving equal access to all the candidates.
Once the CET score is basis for further consideration for selection and
appointment in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.03.2023, it
becomes the duty of the Commission to first ascertain as to whether any
candidate who has claimed marks under the socio economic criteria is
entitiled for the same by verifying the supporting documents attached by the
candidates to claim the said benefit of extra marks.
Once it is conceded before this Court that the candidates have
been given marks merely on the basis that they have claimed the same in
their applications without verifying the genuinity of the supporting
documents attached by them with their applications, any merit list prepared
in pursuance to the same cannot be treated as a result of fair and transparent
13 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
process. The grievance being raised by the petitioners is very much
genuine. Till the CET score is prepared in a transparent manner by
evaluating the claim of all the eligible candidates qua their entitlement
against extra marks under the socio economic criteria, revised merit list
cannot be treated to be correct, satisfying or prepared through evolving a
fair process.
Further, the assertion of the learned Advocate General, Haryana
that in case a candidate has been given extra marks under the socio
economic criteria wrongly, his candidature will be rejected even if he
participates in the selection process in pursuance to the advertisement dated
07.03.2023 at the stage of verification of the documents but the said
arguments cannot be accepted for the reason that the said canddiate who has
been wrongly given the benefit of extra marks will not just participate in the
selection process without entitlement but will also oust a genuine candidate
from the zone of consideration who is otherwise eligible from participating
for selection and appointment in pursuance to the advertisement dated
07.03.2023, which selection process restricts the number of candidates to be
called for selection/appointment in pursuance to the said advertisement to
three/four times of the vacancies advertised.
For example, in case there are five posts to be filled of a
particular post in general category, for which 25 candidates are to be called,
in case two such candidates should have been given marks under the socio
economic criteria illegally, they might be declared ineligible at a later stage
but candidates at Sr. No.26 and 27 of the merit will lose the chance to
participate in the selection despite being eligible and having cleared the
CET examination. The prejudice caused to such candidates cannot be
remedied once the selection process is started. Hence, merely disqualifying
14 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
the ineligible candidates at a later stage, will not serve purpose in the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
Further, learned Advocate General, Haryana requested that the
holding of the written test be allowed as the petitioners who have raised the
grievance can be allowed to participate provisionally. This will also not
suffice the selection process to be undertaken as, once a recruitment to a
public post is to be made, the process which has to be adopted should be
fair, transparent and accountable. Merely that the Commission is not
adverting to its duty of verifying the claim of the candidates before
awarding the marks under socio economic criteria that a genuine candidate
might not have approached this Court who is otherwise eligible hence
allowing the petitioners to participate in the selection process provisionally
will not render the selection process fair or transparent and the said request
cannot be accepted.
Further, the conscious of the Court has to be satisfied that the
process being undertaken by the respondents is free fair and there are no
irregularities exist and all the candidates are being provided equal
opportunity to compete. In the present case, once keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of this case that there exist irregularities keeping in view
the process adopted by the Commission so as to formulate the Common
Eligibility Test score of the candidates, merely that the petitioners are being
allowed to participate provisionally in the written test will not render the
selection process above board.
Therefore, even on this account, the prayer that the petitioners
are being allowed to provisionally, will not render the process being
adopted by the Commission as transparent or accountable so as to give
equal chance to all competing for the post.
15 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
Further it has also come on record that though certain
candidates have withdrawn their benefits under the socio economic criteria
but in the revised merit list they again have been given the marks for the
socio economic criteria.
Learned Advocate General submits that such kind of
discripencies can be rectified.
These discripencies should have been rectified before declaring
the result of the Common Eligibility Test. This shows that even as of now
there are candidates who might have withdrawn their claim for socio
economic criteria but in the final result, again their marks exist while
preparing their CET score, which fact render the slection process under
clout.
Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned
hereinbefore, the revised result issued by the respondents on 25.07.2023
cannot be treated as a valid one so as to be taken into consideration for
undertaking the selection process in pursuance to the advertisment dated
07.03.2023 and hence the same is quashed with a direction to the
respondents to verify the claim of each and every candidate who has
claimed the benefit of five marks under socio economic criteria and
thereafter prepared the revised merit list of Common Eligibility Test so as to
undertake the selection process in pursuance to the advertisement dated
07.03.2023.
Further, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit
that apart from the irregularities in the revised merit list of the Common
Eligibility Test, even the candidates, who are to be called for interview,
their roll numbers have not been given keeping in view the number of
vacancies advertised in different cadres and in different categories.
16 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Commission
is required to publish the roll numbers of the candidates, who are found
eligible to be called for the written test against the post for which they have
applied keeping in view their Common Eligibility Test score so as to
establish the transparency and fairness in the selection process.
Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to why,
once when the selections were made on earlier occasions, the candidates,
who were found eligible after the written examination, their roll numbers
were published by giving the details of the merit of the last candidate to be
called for interview, why the same process has not been adopted by the
Commission while calling the candidates for written test in pursuance to the
Advertisement dated 07.03.2023 so as to avoid any allegation and to project
the transparency and the fairness in the selection process. If the roll
numbers of the candidates, who are to be considered for a particular post as
well as category to be called for written examination, are given, not only the
candidates will know against whom they are compete but a candidate, who
has not been called for interview, will know that the last candidate to be
called for written test against a particular post is at a particular merit
position so as to be satisfied that he/she has rightly not been called for
written examination while undertaking the process of selection as per the
advertisement dated 07.03.2023.
Hence, after re-finalizing the revised merit list of the Common
Eligible Test score as directed in this order, the respondents are directed that
when the process for selection in pursuance to the Advertisement dated
07.03.2023 is to be undertaken, the roll numbers of the candidates, who are
being called for written test for a particular post and that too under a
particular category, should be given with the clear indication as to the marks
17 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
scored by the last candidate so called so as to project the fairness and
transparency.
Keeping in view the above, the present petitions are allowed to
the extent that the respondents will published a fresh revised Common
Eligibility Test score of the candidates, who have appeared in the Common
Eligibility Test and that too after due verification of the claims of the
candidates, who have sought weightage under the Socio Economic Criteria
as to whether, any candidate, who is claiming the said benefit, is entitled for
the same or not. After verifying all the claims, the revised Common
Eligible Test Score will be published and thereafter, the process of selection
in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 07.03.2023 will be undertaken by
the Commission and while undertaking the said process, the directions
given hereinbefore, will be followed with regard to the publishing the roll
numbers of the candidates, who are being called for written examination
against a particular cadre post as well as in the different reserved categories
of the said cadre along with the marks obtained by the last candidate to be
called for written test in a particular category so as to eliminate any
allegation and to project the transparency and fairness in the selection.
It may be noted that a written test is scheduled for
05/06.08.2023, which written test is based upon the revised merit list dated
25.07.2023, which has already been set aside hereinbefore, the respondent-
Commission is directed not to hold the written test scheduled for
05/06.08.2023 as the same is going to cause prejudice to the
candidates/petitioners and the said written test should only be held after the
revised merit list of the Common Eligibility Test is published in terms of
this order.
18 of 19
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
All the writ petitions are allowed in above terms.
August 04, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101099
19 of 19
