Punjab-Haryana High Court
Archana vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
235
*****
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M)
Date of Decision : 23.4.2024
Archana ..... Non-Applicant/Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Applicants-Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana
for the respondents/applicants
Mr. R.Kartikeya, Advocate and
Mr. Raghav Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioner/Non-applicant
Mr. Amit Rao, Adovcate, for
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondent no.3
---
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.:
This application has been filed seeking review of the judgment
dated 12.9.2019, whereby the petition was disposed of directing the
Commission to recommend the petitioner for appointment against the
vacant post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT)-Psychology, Rest of Haryana
cadre, under BC-B category, in the Secondary Education Department.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for the post under BC-B
category in response to advertisement no.4 of 2015 dated 28.6.2015,
whereby forty-nine posts of PGT-Psychology were advertised; last date to
submit the application form was 12.10.2015. She had cleared the written
examination, but was not called for interview on 16.10.2018 for want of
requisite qualification; her Detailed Marks Card (DMC) of M.A.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -2-
Psychology was issued in 2017, which was after the closing date for
submission of application forms. However, during pendency of the
petition, she was provisionally interviewed under interim direction issued
by this Court. The result was produced in a sealed cover, showing that she
had scored ninety-seven out of two hundred marks. One of the selected
candidate had lesser marks than those of the petitioner. The petition was
contested by the respondents-applicants only on the ground that the
petitioner's candidature was rightly rejected on the basis of DMC issued
to her after the closing date for submission of application forms for the
post. Whereas, on the basis of material placed on record, it was concluded
by the Court that the petitioner had passed M.A. Psychology in 2014.
Only on account of an error in her father's name in the DMC, a corrected
one had to be issued on 8.8.2017, which too was prior to the date of
interview conducted on 16.10.2018. Accordingly, it was held that the
petitioner was fully eligible for the post and her candidature was wrongly
rejected. In these circumstances, the petition was disposed of directing the
Commission to recommend the petitioner for appointment against a
vacant post.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants/respondents has contended
that the judgment passed by this Court needs to be reviewed on account of
factual errors. The petitioner had scored seventy-six marks in the written
examination, as against eighty-six marks scored by the last candidate
called for interview. Therefore, she could not have been interviewed being
below the last candidate called, and twenty-one marks of provisional
interview/viva-voce could not have been added to it making her eligible
for recommendation by the Commission. The direction issued by the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -3-
Court is based on wrong facts. Accordingly, the judgment needs to be
reviewed declaring the petitioner not entitled to recommendation.
4. Heard.
5. Concededly, the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered
on the pleadings of the parties as well as the material/documents placed
on record substantiating the same. The only ground on which petitioner's
candidature was rejected, was her not possessing M.A. Psychology before
the closing date for submission of application forms, 12.10.2015. She
filed the petition challenging the said action. In the written statement/
affidavit filed by the respondents also the claim was contested only on the
ground of her ineligibility, contending that the Commission was right and
considering the petitioner ineligible on the basis of DMC issued to her in
2017. The result of written examination was declared vide announcement
dated 30.11.2018, Annexure A-2, wherein the petitioner's result was
withheld. Accordingly, on the date of filing of the written statement/short
reply dated 1.7.2019 before the Court, the respondents were well aware of
the marks scored by the petitioner in the written examination, still no
objection was taken regarding her ineligibility for interview due to her
written test marks being lower than those of the last candidate called for
interview. The only ground pleaded was that on scrutiny of documents on
20.8.2018, the petitioner was found not eligible since her M.A.
Psychology DMC was issued after the cut-off date for submission of
online applications. Resultantly, it cannot be said that there is any factual
error in the judgment dated 12.9.2019.
6. For the reasons recorded above, there is no ground to review the
judgment dated 12.9.2019.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000000
RA-CW-157 of 2020 (O & M) -4-
7. Dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
23.4.2024
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
