Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr Monika Sachdeva vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054880
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:054880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
223 CWP-8826-2019 (O&M)
Decided on :23.04.2024
DR MONIKA SACHDEVA .PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. J. S. Dahiya, Advocate
for respondents No. 4, 17, 18, 24, 27,61,
66, 87, 88, 101, 104 and 106.
Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.
5,10,12,13,16,19 to 23,26,29,30,33,34,36,37,39,40,41,45 to
49, 51 to 53, 55,56,60,62,63,65,68,70 to 73, 76 to 79, 85,86,87,
91 to 95, 97 to 99, 102,103, 105, 110 to 116, 118,119 and 120.
Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate for respondents No.
8, 28, 75, 82.
Mr.Naveen Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 15, 25, 38, 58,
83, 107.
Ms. Pooja Chhabra, Advocate for
Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for respondent No. 31.
Mr. Gaurav Gaur, Advocate for respondent No. 32.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the selection which
has been made on the post of the Female Supervisor as advertised vide
advertisement No. 1 of 2011 dated 19.03.2011 (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge to
the selection for the post of female supervisor is on the ground that certain
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054880
CWP-8826-2019 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:054880
candidates were not eligible for the post in question keeping in view the
qualification prescribed in the advertisement but they still have been selected
despite the fact that they did not had a graduation degree from recognized
university.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without
adjudging the eligibility of the candidates, the selection for the post in
question has been made which needs to be set-aside as selecting the
candidates who are ineligible keeping in view the essential qualification
prescribed amounts to injustice for the other eligible candidates.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that all the candidates who have been selected for the post in question fulfill
the requisite qualification prescribed in the advertisement and the claim
raised by the petitioner that the selected candidates were having diploma
rather than the degree is incorrect. Learned counsel for the respondents
further submits that all the candidates selected for the post in question
fulfills the qualification of graduation which is the essential qualification
required as per the advertisement so as to be eligible for the post in question
and it is only by way of preference i.e. the graduation in Home Science or
Child Development or Nutrition which was mentioned in the advertisement
itself, which only came into play in case, two candidates are similarly
situated and one is to be given preference over the other.
5. Learned senior counsel for the private respondents reiterate the
arguments raised on behalf of the respondents-State and submits that not
even a single fact qua the ineligibility of the selected candidates has been
mentioned and in the absence of specific allegation qua the specific selected
candidate, the general allegations cannot be accepted.
6. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054880
CWP-8826-2019 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:054880
respondents further submits that the selection process for the post in question
was over in the year 2013 whereas, the present petition has been filed in the
year 2019 i.e. after six years, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay itself, as, by the time, the present writ petition was filed, the
selected candidates were even confirmed on the post in question.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. It is a conceded position that the present writ petition has been
filed after a period of six years of the selection for the post in question and at
the time when the writ petition was filed, the selected candidates had already
been confirmed by the respondents. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5027 of 2024 titled as Mrinmoy
Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others, decided on 18.04.2024, while
entertaining a writ petition, the question of delay raised on behalf of the
respondents needs to be appreciated with serious view. The delay in raising
the dispute so as to take away the crystallize right, should be taken into
consideration while passing an order in a writ petition. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment passed in Mrinmoy Maity's case (supra) is as
under:-
"11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed
period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to
be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been
invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the
dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has
had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of
delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054880
CWP-8826-2019 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:054880
applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ
petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to
dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the
writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent
litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there
cannot be any waiver of fundamental right but while exercising
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will
have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches
on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This
Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B.,
(2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effect:
"56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true
that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while
exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227
or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain
factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on
the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well
settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the
grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the
Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.
57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court,
he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible
opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ
will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such
discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this
principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and
exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054880
CWP-8826-2019 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:054880
or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the
meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC
1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial
Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of
India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR
969]). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of
fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B.
Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110], Durga Prashad v. Chief
Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185]
and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84]).
58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to
when a person can approach a court. The question is one of
discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the
court depending on and varying from case to case. It will
depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the
remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose."
9. In the present petition, the challenge to the selection for the post
in question was raised in the year 2019 however, the selection for the post in
question stool finalized in the year 2013. By the time, the selection process
for the post in question was challenged, the selected candidates stood
confirmed on the post in question. It could be a possibility that the certain
candidates might have left other jobs so as to join the present post and setting
aside their appointment after a delay of six years even without the allegations
being proved, will be causing a hardship to them.
10. Even otherwise, on merit, the only ground raised is that the
selected candidates do not fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054880
CWP-8826-2019 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:054880
on the post in question.
11. A bare perusal of the advertisement would show that the
candidates in order to become eligible for the post in question were required
be a graduate from the recognized university. The preference was to be given
to a candidate who is graduate in Home Science or Child Development or
nutrition. Hence, all the candidates who are graduate are eligible to compete
for the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able
to show the detail of any selected candidate who was ineligible as per the
qualification required in the advertisement.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one
candidate, namely, Smt. Neelam, has a diploma done from MDU in the year
2011.
From a bare perusal of the application form of the Neelam in
column No.11 it has been already mentioned that she has done her degree in
BAMS, which makes it clear that she is a graduate. Similarly, with regard to
the grievance being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner against
one Sudesh, whose application form has been attached at page No. 90 of the
paper book, it may be noticed that as per her application form, she has done
her degree in the year 2011 and in column No. 11, she has mentioned that she
has a bachelor degree in physical education as well, which shows that the
both the candidates namely, Neelam and Sudesh were eligible to compete for
the post in question.
13. Further with regard to the argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the qualification required for the post in question is
degree in home science or child development or nutrition, the said argument
is incorrect. The essential qualification for the post in question as mentioned
in the advertisement is as under:-
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054880
CWP-8826-2019 (O&M) -7- 2024:PHHC:054880
"(i) Graduation from a recognized university preferably in
Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition.
(ii) Hindi, Sanskrit upto Matric Standard. "
14. A bare perusal of the above would show that the graduation is
the basic qualification and the preference was to be given to the candidates
who have done graduation in home science or child development or
nutrition, which means that the preference is to be given in case, two
candidates are at same footing and only one of them is to be appointed. The
said view being taken by this Court is also supported by the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10101 of 2014, titled as Pinky
v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 04.10.2017.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the
said contention keeping in view the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court passed in Pinky's case (supra).
16. No other argument has been raised.
17.. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
present case recorded herein above, no ground is made out for interference in
the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.
18. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
23.04.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
