Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 28 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112764
CWP-279-2017 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:112764
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215 CWP-279-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 28.08.2023
Jagdish Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG, Punjab.
*****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed for directions
to the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of
Revenue Patwari.
2. The petitioner had applied for recruitment for the post of
Revenue Patwari as an Ex-serviceman on 25.08.2015. As per the original
advertisement, the petitioner would have been over aged and he had not
applied under the Ex-serviceman category. The examination was conducted
but the result was scrapped on account of certain allegations relating to the
exam. Those candidates who had already applied in the earlier selection
process were asked to re-apply but the fees which had already been
deposited under the earlier advertisement was to be considered. Even the
roll number as mentioned in the earlier recruitment was to be taken into
consideration and the age criteria was also required to be considered
similarly. While filling the new form online, the petitioner's category was
mentioned as General without mentioning Ex-serviceman. Resultantly,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112764
CWP-279-2017 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:112764
when the result of the examination was declared afresh, although, the
petitioner was falling in the Ex-servicemen category, he was shown as
unsuccessful in the General category and was denied counseling and
appointment. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court submitting
that he had always intended to and applied under an Ex-servicemen
category. He had also deposited the fees accordingly, which was relaxed for
Ex-servicemen. He was over age if treated as a General category and it is
only as an Ex-servicemen that he could have participated in the selection
process.
3. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the
petitioner should be considered as an Ex-servicemen and his candidature
should be considered accordingly in the same merit of Ex-servicemen.
4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner scored 20
marks while the cut off marks for the Ex-servicemen were 18.25 but the
admit card which was issued for the subsequent written examination
conducted, as per the fresh advertisement, after the scraping of the earlier
exam, mentioned the petitioner's category as General. The form placed on
record for recruitment to the post of Revenue Patwari 2016 also mentions
category as General. Therefore, the petitioner ought to be considered as a
General category.
5. I have reflected on the submissions and carefully noticed the
facts of the present case and find that the previous roll number of the
petitioner has been mentioned in the form of the recruitment for the post of
Revenue Patwari 2016. The age of the petitioner treating date of birth as
10.02.1977 would fall over age if he is to be treated as a General category.
It is also to be noticed that in the qualifications detail, the petitioner is shown
to have passed graduation from Army which also shows that the petitioner is
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112764
CWP-279-2017 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:112764
an Ex-Army servicemen.
6. Considering all the aspects, the petitioner has to be treated as an
Ex-servicemen and the respondents ought to have considered him in the said
category for the purpose of consideration of his case for appointment as an
Ex-servicemen.
7. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner falls above,
the cut off marks for Ex-servicemen i.e. he scored 20 marks while the cut off
marks was 18.25, he would be entitled for being considered for appointment
as a Revenue Patwari under the Ex-servicemen quota.
8. The view taken by this Court is also supported in the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarla Vs. State of
Haryana; CWP-14863-2017 decided on 31.10.2018, wherein identical issue
was examined by this Court by referring to earlier judgment passed in Usha
Dhillon Vs. State of Haryana; 2015 (2) PLR 412. The Court has observed
as under:-
"It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given
certificate dated 17.02.2017 i.e before last date of submission
of application form. It is not a case where the petitioner
intentionally tried to change her category from BCB to EBPG
and it was the duty of the respondents to read the form of the
petitioner carefully and then to reject the case of the petitioner.
For all intents and purposes, it was a clerical mistake. It is not
a case of the respondents that the certificate (Annexure P-5) of
the petitioner is not valid. Due to inadvertent mistake of the
petitioner, the petitioner was considered against the wrong
category.
Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of this
Court in a case of Usha Dhillon vs. State of Haryana and
others, 2015 (2) PLR 412 wherein it has been held that there
was no provisional on the website of the Commission allowing
correction in the online application form. There was no option
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112764
CWP-279-2017 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:112764
left with the petitioner but to approach the Commission through
her application. If one is human, one will err. Right of no other
candidate would be effected, if the application of the petitioner
is permitted to be considered, prayed for. Respondents were
directed to consider the case of the petitioner under Ex-
servicemen category as dependent of Ex servicemen, in
accordance with law.
In view of the above factual position, the present writ
petition stands allowed and the respondents are directed to
consider the candidature of the petitioner under EBPG
category instead of BCB category and issue her appointment
letter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. The petitioner is entitled to all
consequential benefits."
The said judgment was examined by the Division
Bench of this Court in LPA-320-2019 decided on 22.02.2019 in
which the Court has observed as under:-
"4. The case set up by the respondent-petitioner was that as
soon as the mistake committed in filling up online form came to
her knowledge she immediately made a representation dated
27.04.2017 before respondent No.2 requesting for necessary
correction in the application form. She was assured that at the
time of verification of the documents she will be allowed to
carry out necessary corrections and was permitted to appear in
the written test. However, subsequently when she appeared for
verification of documents on 03.07.2017 she was not allowed to
participate in the interview and her candidature was cancelled.
5. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in view of the
prevailing socio economic condition in our country, every
citizen is neither net savvy nor has a computer or laptop readily
available for use. In these circumstances, when such a
candidate has to submit an application on-line he has to
dependent upon the cyber cafés providing the net services.
Being himself/herself not computer and net savvy the candidate
has to depend upon the operator in the cyber café to fill in
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112764
CWP-279-2017 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:112764
online form and in such a circumstance if any mistake occurs it
would be wholly unrealistic and arbitrary to make such a
candidate suffer. It is also to be taken note of that if an
incorrect entry is made due to human error, there is no
provision on the website of the Commission allowing correction
in the online application form. In these circumstances, if a
mistake is committed, there being no provision for carrying out
correction, even if it is noticed subsequently, a poor candidate
is to suffer for no fault.
6. In the case in hand, the respondent-petitioner is a poor
widow lady and is resident of village Karora, District Kaithal,
where she was working as an Anganwari Worker. It is pleaded
in the writ petition that online application form was submitted
by her through computer centre in the village. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances we find no illegality in the
view taken by the learned Single Judge allowing the claim of
the respondent-petitioner.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant we are
also not persuaded to take a different view in the matter than
the taken by the learned Single Judge. Appeal thus accordingly
stands dismissed."
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post
of Revenue Patwari under the recruitment of Revenue Patwari 2016 and if
he is found otherwise suitable, appointment be offer to him. On
appointment, he would be given all the consequential benefits from the date
other persons have been so recruited but the salary shall be treated as
notional. The actual salary shall be paid from the date he joins the post. The
said exercise shall be conducted within a period of one month from today.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
28.08.2023 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:112764
5 of 5
