Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravish vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 January, 2023
-1-
CWP-22498-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-22498-2022
Date of decision: 11.01.2023
Ravish
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Sandeeep Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate,
for respondent No.3-HPSC.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present petition is to the letter/orders dated
17.09.2022 (Annexure P-5), dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) and the
action of the respondents, rejecting the application form of the petitioner
for the post of Lecturer in Applied Science (Maths), on the ground that the
petitioner had passed written test, as a General Category candidate whereas
he has passed National Eligibility Test (NET) as a General(EWS) Category
candidate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent
No.3-HPSC advertised 22 posts of Lecturer in Applies Science (Maths)
(Group-B) in Technical Education Department, Haryana, vide
advertisement No.11/2021; that the petitioner being eligible applied for the
said post under the General Category; that the respondent had issued admit
card to the petitioner; that the petitioner had taken the written test
1 of 6
CWP-22498-2022
conducted by the respondent(s), and that in the result declared on
16.08.2022, the petitioner was shown passed in the written test as a General
Category candidate and it was also mentioned that the petitioner would be
called for interview. However, vide letter dated 17.09.2022 received
through email, the application of the petitioner was rejected by respondent
No.3 on the ground that he had passed the written test for the above-
mentioned post as a General Category candidate, but passed NET as a
General (EWS) Category candidate, and that the petitioner had been asked
to raise objection, if any, against his rejection within three days. The
petitioner moved a representation dated 19.09.2022 before respondent No.3
with an objection that he being NET qualified could compete for the said
post under the General Category and moreover, there was no rider in the
advertisement that a candidate who has cleared the NET as a General
(EWS) Category candidate, was not eligible to compete for the post meant
for the General Category. However in spite thereof, the candidature of the
petitioner has wrongly been rejected. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel relies upon the judgments rendered by a Coordinate Bench in
'Sukhwinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others,
CWP-1888-2014, decided on 02.12.2015, and by the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in 'Banita Vs. State of H.P. and Another', CWP-2350-2019,
decided on 09.01.2020.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3
submits that out of 22 posts of Lecturer in Applied Science (Maths) 02
posts were reserved for the candidates under the EWS Category, and that
the petitioner had cleared the NET as a EWS Category Candidate and,
2 of 6
CWP-22498-2022
therefore, he should have submitted his application form under the
aforesaid category and competed for the posts reserved for the said
category. Learned counsel further submits that General Category and EWS
Category are two separate categories and generally, the merit for EWS
Category is lower than that of the General Category. Learned counsel
further submits that the petitioner has cleared NET as a EWS Category
candidate and, therefore, his candidature under the General Category has
rightly been rejected.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Indisputably, the petitioner has passed NET as a General
(EWS) Category candidate. A perusal of the result (Annexure P-4) would
show that the petitioner also passed the written test for the post of Lecturer
in Applied Science (Maths) under the General Category and that he was to
appear in the Viva-Voce for which he was to be informed separately.
However vide letter dated 17.09.2022 received through email, the
application of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground
that he had passed the written test for the above-mentioned post under the
General Category, but passed NET as a General (EWS) Category candidate.
Vide order dated 28.09.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench,
the respondents had been directed to provisionally interview the petitioner,
but not to declare his result without there being an express order.
In response thereof, it is stated by learned counsel for
respondent No.3 that the petitioner has scored above the cut-off marks in
the exam/selection process.
A perusal of the advertisements makes it clear that essential
3 of 6
CWP-22498-2022
qualification clause for the post of Lecturer in Applied Science (Math)
would show that a candidate should have cleared First Class Master of
Science (Math) Degree with NET/Ph.D in subject of Math from a
recognized university/institution. There is no rider in the advertisement
that a candidate who has cleared the NET under the General (EWS)
Category, is not eligible to compete for the post meant for the General
Category. The petitioner is fulfilling the academic criteria contained in the
advertisement for applying to the post under the General Category, he
could not have been denied appointment for the post of Lecturer in Applied
Science (Maths), meant for the open category on the ground that he has
cleared NET as a General (EWS) Category Candidate.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Banita (supra) has held
as under:
"10. A perusal of the advertisement demonstrates
that Essential Qualifications Clause therein simply
mentions that a candidate besides fulfilling the educational
qualifications contained therein, should have cleared the
eligibility test (NET) for Assistant Professor conducted by
the UGC, CSIR or similar test. There is no rider in the
advertisement that a candidate who has cleared the NET
test as a Scheduled Caste category candidate or Scheduled
Tribe Category candidate, was not eligible to compete for
the post meant for open category. Once the petitioner was
fulfilling the academic criteria contained in the
advertisement for applying to the post under the open
category, she could not have been denied appointment for
the post of Assistant Professor meant for open category on
the ground that she had cleared National Eligibility Test
(NET) as a Scheduled Caste category candidate. I reiterate
4 of 6
CWP-22498-2022
that the advertisement only refers to the passing of NET
test as the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment
and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. There
is nothing contained in the advertisement from which it
could be inferred that a candidate who had cleared NET
test as Scheduled Caste category candidate was eligible to
apply only for the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste
category.
11. The entire controversy can be perceived from
another perspective also. It is settled law of the land that
whereas a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe category has an exclusive right to compete
for the post reserved for those particular categories,
however, in case such a candidate otherwise on the
strength of merit is found eligible for appointment against
the open category post, then such candidate has to be
offered appointment against open category post and the
reserved seats are to be offered to other candidates who
may are less meritorious but belongs to the reserved
category. Applying that test in the present case, had the
petitioner applied for the post in issue as a Scheduled
Caste category candidate, then on her being successful in
the selection process, she ought to have been offered
appointment against the post meant for open category
because it is not in dispute that the last candidate who has
been offered appointment under general category was less
meritorious than the present petitioner and petitioner had
not availed any concession available to a Scheduled Caste
category candidate in terms of the advertisement. On this
count, denial of appointment to the petitioner by the
respondent-Department on the ground that she had passed
NET test as a Scheduled Caste category candidate and not
as an open category candidate, is in fact arbitrary and not
sustainable in law.
5 of 6
CWP-22498-2022
No other point has been argued.
In view of what has been discussed herein above, the present
petition is allowed. The impugned letter/orders dated 17.09.2022
(Annexure P-5), dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) are set aside. The act of
respondent No.3 qua rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the
ground that he was not eligible for the post belonging to General Category
as she had passed NET examination as a EWS Category candidate, is held
to be bad in law. Considering the fact that the petitioner has scored above
the cut-off marks in the exam/selection process, as stated by learned
counsel for respondent No.3 during the course of hearing, respondents are
directed to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Lecturer
in Applied Science (Maths), under the General Category, as from the date
when the persons junior to him were offered appointment. Needful shall be
done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. Ensuring benefits shall also accrue upon the petitioner.
11.01.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
