Lalita Rani vs Haryana Staff Selection ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15462 P&H

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118384




CWP-19844-2023                    2023:PHHC:118384                  1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


(117)                             CWP-19844-2023
                                  Date of Decision : September 11, 2023


Lalita Rani                                                  .. Petitioner



                                  Versus

Haryana Staff Selection Commission                           .. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. N.K. Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner

be allowed to change her category from "General" to "Economically

Weaker Section" so as to consider her claim for appointment as a Staff

Nurse, which post was advertised vide Advertisement No.15/2019 dated

07.09.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes the fact

that while applying for the post of Staff Nurse, the form filled by the

petitioner clearly stated that the petitioner is competing in the General

category.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said act was

inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner as the petitioner was fully

entitled for competing under the "Economically Weaker Section" and also

possessed the valid EWS certificate and after the last date of filling of the

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118384

application form, realizing the said mistake, the petitioner had approached

the respondents on various occasions to correct the said mistake but the

same has not been done and the claim of the petitioner has only been

considered in the General category.

4. On being asked as to whether, as per the terms and conditions

of the Advertisement, the category under which an application is filled, can

be changed, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per the

terms and conditions of the appointment, the category once filled, cannot be

changed.

5. That being so, the prayer of the petitioner is contrary to the

terms and conditions of the Advertisement, which are sacrosanct and are to

be adhered by the respondents while making selection.

6. Not only this, as per the settled principle of law settled by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.198 of 2005 titled as

J & K Public Service Commission vs. Israr Ahmed and others, decided on

07.01.2005, candidates who have chosen to opt for a particular category,

cannot be allowed to change the said category later on and a fresh claim

cannot be raised. Relevant paragraph 6 of the said 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 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

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118384

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."

7. Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner is not

only against the terms and conditions of the Advertisement but also against

the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore, which cannot be allowed.

8. No interference is called for any interference by this Court.

9. Dismissed.

September 11, 2023                    (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha                                       JUDGE


            Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
            Whether reportable       : Yes




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118384

                                     3 of 3