Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahil Sharma vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 11 December, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
2023:PHHC:157787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106 CWP-27698-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 11.12.2023
Sahil Sharma . . .Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission . . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Ankur Sidhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner be allowed to change his category from General to Economic
Weaker Section (EWS) and allow him to particular further in the selection
process for the post in question.
2. It may be noticed that the respondents had issued an
advertisement for conducting common eligibility test for group C posts, copy
of which has been appended as Annexure P-1.
3. In the present case, in pursuance to the said advertisement, the
petitioner filled-up the application form in a General category so as to allow
him to compete in the said category which application was accepted by the
respondents. The petitioner appeared in the common eligibility test which
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
CWP-27698-2023 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:157787
was conducted by the respondents to shortlist the candidates for the post in
question. The petitioner appeared in the common eligibility test as a general
category candidate and obtained 46.5 marks. The last candidate in the
general category who has been shortlisted for further participation in the
selection process for the post in question, has secured 47.5 marks, but the
petitioner was not shortlisted for further selection process as he did not
secure the minimum marks that was required for in order to be shortlisted for
further selection process.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, raised the grievance that the
petitioner's category should be changed from General to economic weaker
section keeping in view the public notice dated 11.01.2023 as well as
01.02.2023 (Anneuxre P-3).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 23185 of 2014, titled as
'Usha Dhillon vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 15.12.2014 and
the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP No.
10407 of 2019, titled as Kaptan Singh and another v. Union of India and
others, decided on 30.08.2019 to support his claim.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been
allowed to change his category from general category to Economic Weaker
Section category, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the case file with his able assistance.
8. It is a conceded fact that the petitioner filled up the application
form for the post in question in which he claimed to compete under the
general category. The petitioner appeared in the common eligibility test also
under the general category but after being unable to secure the minimum
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
CWP-27698-2023 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:157787
marks required to clear common eligibility test in general category, the
petitioner is now raising a grievance with regard to the fact that as he has
obtained 46.5 marks and he also belongs to the category of EWS, for which
the cutt-off is 38 marks, the petitioner be allowed to change his category
from general category to EWS category. The said prayer of the petitioner
cannot be accepted for the reasons is that once the petitioner has applied in a
particular category, the same has to be taken into account while proceeding
with the selection process for the post in question.
9. Further, the petitioner has already appeared in the common
eligibility test under general category candidate and where his candidature
has already been considered under general category and he has not been
found eligible to compete further. That being the position, the petitioner
cannot be allowed to change his category at this belated stage. As per the
judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 198 of
2005, titled as J & K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad and
others, decided on 07.01.2005, once a candidate has competed in a
particular category, same cannot be changed at a belated stage.
Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under:
"6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced
by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent
cannot be accepted as he has not applied for the selection
as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not
produce any certificate along with his application. The
fact that he has not availed the benefit for the preliminary
examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate
not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary
examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
CWP-27698-2023 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:157787
stage of the main examination he cannot avail the the
reservation on the ground that he was successful in
getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The
nature and status of the candidate who was applying for
the selection could only be treated alike and once a
candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he
is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make
fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in
holding that as a candidate he had also had the
qualification and the production of the certificate at later
stage would make him entitled to seek reservation.
Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division
Bench and allow the appeal."
10. The question as to whether, the public notice dated 11.01.2023
& 01.02.2023 ( Anneuxre P-3) will allow the petitioner to change his
category or not. A bare perusal of the said public notices would show that
the same were only for correction of the application form wherein the
category has wrongly been mentioned by the candidates. In the present case,
it is a conceded position that the petitioner has not mentioned an incorrect
category while submitting the application form for the post in question rather
the petitioner chose to compete in the general category.
11. On being asked as to whether, the petitioner had attached the
certificate/documents to prove his eligibility under EWS category, learned
counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that it is only while applying
under the public notices, the petitioner chose the category of EWS and has
requested that his documents to support the said claim be also accepted and
no document to support the claim under EWS category was appended with
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
CWP-27698-2023 (O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:157787
the application form.
12. The said request of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the
reasons that as per the clause of the advertisement, all the documents
required to claim a benefit under the category are needed to be appended
alongwith the application form. In case, any document for claiming the
benefit under any category is not appended with the application form by the
candidate, the benefit of the said category was not to be given to the
candidate, that being the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the
petitioner is now changing his category under the garb of making correction
in his application form is not permissible.
13. Further more, as learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the claim of the petitioner is covered with the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Kaptan Singh's case (Supra). A bare perusal of the
said judgment would show that the details were mentioned wrongly in the
application form which was needed to be corrected but in the present case,
the petitioner filled up the application form in general category for the post
in question and raised no objection qua competing in general category till the
result of the common eligibility test was declared and it was only after the
declaration of result of common eligibility test and keeping in view the marks
secured by the petitioner in the general category, the petitioner is trying to
change is category to the EWS category, hence, judgment passed by the co-
ordinate bench of this Court in Kaptan Singh's case (Supra) will not come in
the rescue of the petitioner.
14. Similarly, reliance is being placed by the petitioner upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Usha Dhillon's case
(Supra), is misplaced as the said judgment also relates to a bona fide mistake
with regard to a category mentioned while filling up the application form for
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
CWP-27698-2023 (O&M) 6 2023:PHHC:157787
the post in question.
15. In the present case, it is not the case that the petitioner wanted to
apply in the EWS category but has wrongly filled up the application form
under the General category.
16. Story being projected by the petitioner is an after thought, which
can be proved from various facts. The last date of filling up the application
form was 13.07.2022 and in case, the petitioner had made a mistake in filling
up the application form under general category, he could have rectified the
same immediately by submitting any representation. The common eligibility
test was held on 05-06.11.2022. The petitioner got a roll number under the
general category and he appeared in the common eligibility test under
general category. Not only this, his result has been declared in the general
category and it is only after the declaration of the result of common
eligibility in the general category merely realizing that the candidate under
EWS category has a lesser percentage of clearing the Common eligibility
test, the petitioner filed first representation with the respondents on
22.02.2023. This Shows that the petitioner is only trying to change his
category keeping in view the marks obtained by him in common eligibility
test and it is not case of bona fide mistake while filling up the application
form under a particular category as being claimed by the petitioner. The
petitioner is trying to mislead this Court, which is clear from the facts raised
in the present petition and arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner during the hearing. This kind of act of misleading to the Court
needs to be curbed by strict order. Though, this Court intended to impose
cost upon the petitioner for misleading the Court, as the petitioner is
unemployed, the cost is not being imposed with the clear warning to the
petitioner to remain careful in future.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
CWP-27698-2023 (O&M) 7 2023:PHHC:157787
17. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
recorded herein above, no ground is made out for inference interfere in the
present case, hence the present case stands dismissed.
18. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
11.12.2023
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:157787
7 of 7
