Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapil Dev And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 December, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 1
245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7305-2021
Date of Decision: 18.12.2023
Kapil Dev and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
2. CWP-4067-2021
Pankaj
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
3. CWP-9237-2022
Aditya Sikaligar and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
4. CWP-10658-2022
Sandeep Kumar and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
5. CWP-2640-2022
Himanshu Sharma and others
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
6. CWP-4471-2022
Vikash Kumar Sheshma
...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-7305-2021, CWP-9237-2022 &
CWP-10658-2022.
Mr. Rajiv Sharma Hisarwale, Advocate
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 22-12-2023 21:38:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 2
for the petitioner in CWP-4067-2022
Mr. Harshit, Advocae with
Ms. Anisha Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Sushmeet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-4471-2022.
Mr. Manoj Kumar Tanwar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-2640-2022.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
In the present bunch of petitions, the grievance being raised by
the petitioners is that they should be treated eligible so as to compete for 671
posts of Mid Level Health Providers-cum-Community Health Officers,
(MLHPs cum CHOs) which were to be filled up on contract basis under
National Health Mission in various Districts of the Government of Haryana.
2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation
of the issue in hand. The advertisement dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure P-1)
was issued by the National Health Mission, Haryana, for the recruitment of
671 posts of the Mid Level Health Providers-cum-Community Health
Officers to be filled up on contract basis, which appointments were to be
made in various Districts of Haryana as envisaged in the advertisement itself.
The 671 posts were bifurcated in various Reserved Categories and different
number of posts were available in different Districts of Government of
Haryana.
3. As per the essential eligibility, certain eligible candidates were
required to possess the essential qualification as mentioned in the
advertisement itself. As per the Condition No. 3(i) of the eligibility criteria,
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 3
the candidates were required to submit their final year detailed marks
certificate (DMC) along with copies of all previous years detailed marks
certificates at the time of document verification. The candidates who could
not produce the final year DMC at the time of document verification, were
declared ineligible for further selection process. The petitioners in the present
petition are the ones, who were appearing in the final year of B.Sc (Nursing).
Upto the last date of submission of application forms, their result of the said
examination had not been declared upto the last date of submitting of the
application form for the post in question i.e. 31.01.2021. The petitioners were
provisionally allowed to compete on the ground that they were appearing in
their final year examination which was a basic essential qualification which
is required to be eligible so as to compete for the post in question and can
produce the eligibility upto the date documents are verified.
4. The selection for the post in question was to be made on the
basis of the written examination coupled with the scrutiny of the documents.
The petitioners appeared for the written examination and cleared the same
and were called for scrutiny of their documents which was fixed from
08.03.2021 till 26.03.2021. The petitioners appeared for the scrutiny of
documents but as they could not produce their final year detailed mark
certificate, the petitioners were declared ineligible as per Clause 3(i) of the
eligibility conditions as mentioned in the advertisement. It may be noticed
that upto the date of scrutiny of document, result of final year examination
was not declared so as to grant eligibility to the petitioners.
5. The petitioners approached this Court raising a claim that once
the petitioners have been allowed to compete and their final year result of the
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 4
course, which is an essential qualification as per the advertisement, has not
been declared by the University/Institution concerned, the petitioners should
not be prejudiced on account of any action which is beyond their control,
hence, they be treated eligible with the further prayer that they be allowed to
submit their documents qua possession of the essential qualification before
the conclusion of the selection process.
6. By an interim order, this Court directed the petitioner to present
their documents qua eligibility which was complied with by them. Learned
counsel for the petitioners argue that once the petitioners have also submitted
the documents with regard to the minimum eligibility required to compete
for the post in question though, the same was under the direction of the
Court, hence, the petitioners have to be treated eligible for all intents and
purposes.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that in the present case, it is a conceded position that on the last date of
submission of the application form for the post in question, the petitioner did
not had the minimum eligibility qualification required to compete for the
post but still they were allowed to compete on the ground that they were
appearing in the final year examination so that in case, they clear the same
before scrutiny of the documents, they should be treated eligible so that no
prejudice is caused to them. But, the scrutiny of the documents took place
from 08.03.2021 till 26.03.2021 by which date, the petitioners failed to
submit their final year detailed marks certificate to prove their eligibility to
compete for the post in question hence, they were rightly being declared
ineligible keeping in view the clause 3(i) of the eligibility conditions as
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 5
envisaged under the advertisement in question hence, the petitioners cannot
be allowed to raise any grievance.
8. The further argument of the counsel for the respondents is that,
the selection process was complete when the final result was declared on
08.07.2021 and even upto the said date, the petitioners have not been able to
gain minimum eligibility required to become eligible to compete for the post
in question, hence, once during the selection process, the petitioners failed to
gain the eligibility for the post in question, as prescribed under the
advertisement, the petitioners cannot claim that they are eligible to compete
merely on the ground that they had appeared in the written examination, and
the Court had directed them to submit their documents during the pendency
of the present petition.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record with their able assistance.
10. The only question which is required to be adjudicated is whether
in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners can be
treated as eligible for the post in question.
11. It is a conceded fact that the minimum essential qualifications
were prescribed in the advertisement itself which were required to be
possessed by the candidates in order to compete for the post in question.
Keeping in view certain facts, a leverage was given by the selecting agency
that any candidate who is appearing in the final year examination to be
eligible with the candidates that have to prove their eligibility at the time of
the scrutiny in case they clear the other aspects of the selection process
including the written examination. That being the criteria for selection, the
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 6
claim of the petitioner needs to be within the four corners of the criteria
provided in the advertisement so as to treat them eligible for the post in
question.
12. It is a conceded position before this Court that upto the last date
of the submitting the application form i.e. 31.01.2021 the petitioner did not
had the minimum eligibility required to compete for the post in question. Not
only this, even on the date when the written examination was held, the
petitioners were ineligible qua the minimum eligibility required. Even on the
date of the scrutiny, which was held in March 2021, upto which date, the
eligibility was required to be proved by the candidates, the petitioners were
not eligible as they did not have passed the final year examination which is a
minimum qualification required to compete for the post in question. It is also
a conceded position that the selection process was finalized by declaration of
result on 08.07.2021 on which date also, the petitioners did not had the
minimum eligibility required for the post in question so as to compete for the
same.
13. Under these circumstances when, from the day one of the
initiation of the selection process till the completion of the selection process,
the petitioners failed to gain the minimum essential eligibility required to
compete for the post in question, as enumerated in the advertisement, the
petitioners cannot claim eligibility. The terms and conditions of the
advertisement are sancrosanct and the candidates are required to fulfill all
those terms and conditions in order to gain the access to compete for the post
in question.
14. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 7
that at any given point of time starting from the date of issuance of the
advertisement till the declaration of final result on 08.07.2021, the petitioner
gained eligibility to compete for the same as envisaged in the terms of the
criteria envisaged under the advertisement. Hence, the petitioners cannot be
allowed to compete for the post in question being ineligible.
15. It is a settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India that the candidate must attain all the eligibility qualifications
upto the last date of submitting of the application form. Though, upto the last
date of submission of application form, the petitioners did not fulfill the
required eligibility but, keeping in view the fact that the candidates who were
appearing in the final year examination which was also one of the required
minimum qualification to be eligible to allow them to compete were required
to produce their detailed marks certificate to prove that they have minimum
required qualification on the date of scrutiny of documents, which
concededly the petitioners could not submit, hence, they were rightly
declared ineligible.
16. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7677 of
2021 decided on 16.12.2021 titled as State of Bihar Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan
and others squarely covers the case of the petitioners against them that the
candidates has to prove eligibility as per the terms and conditions of the
advertisement. Relevant paragraph No.9 of the judgment is reproduced as
follows:
As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to
comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the
advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless
extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents,
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 8
which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are
required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be
considered. Therefore, when the respondent No.1 - original writ
petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC 'B' certificate
alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the
same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off
date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the
additional five marks of the NCC 'B' certificate. In these
circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in
directing the appellants to appoint the respondent No.1 - original
writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list
dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC 'B'
certificate.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that once by an
interim order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners
were asked to submit their documents provisionally, the respondents were
under an obligation to consider the petitioners eligible for all intents and
purposes. Qua the said arguments, it may be noticed that the said order was
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 03.02.2022 and the
Department was directed to keep some seats vacant for the petitioner if they
are found meritorious. It may be noticed that interim order is not a final
order. Any interim directions given are subject to final order to be passed in
the writ petition. Merely that the petitioners were asked to provisionally
submit their documents for the consideration of the Department and that too
when entry selection process was already over, the petitioners will not gain
the eligibility in case, they do not fulfil the same as per the terms and
conditions of the adjustment and once it is a conceded position that the
petitioners are ineligible under terms and conditions of the advertisement
from the date of initiation of the process till the completion of the same, the
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
CWP-7305-2021 and other connected cases 2023:PHHC:163421 9
petitioners have rightly been declared ineligible to compete for the post in
question.
18. No further argument was raised. No ground for interference is
made out in the present case.
19. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is dismissed.
20. A photocopy of the order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
18.12.2023
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163421
9 of 9
