Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:058420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision:25.04.2024
Ajay Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
*****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned final result dated 22.03.2021
(Annexure P-14) with a further prayer to quash 'Clause/Point 2.3 (iii) a' of
the Advertisement (Annexure P-1) to the extent whereby the respondents
declared not to give 05 marks of Socio Economic Criteria to the
petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset stated that at
this stage he does not wish to press the second prayer for quashing of the
'Clause/Point 2.3 (iii) a' of the Advertisement (Annexure P-1) and his
only prayer is that considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the final result qua the petitioner in which the petitioner was not
selected may be set aside and direction may be issued to respondents to
consider the candidature of the petitioner after giving him the weightage
of 05 marks.
1 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:058420
3. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-
Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as
'Commission') issued an advertisement dated 05.07.2019 vide Annexure
P-1 for appointment to various posts and the present petitioner applied for
the post of Assistant Lineman. The last date for the submission of
application form was 03.02.2020. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-5, the
petitioner filled up the application form and applied for the aforesaid post
and on the point No.3 in Socio Economics Criteria, it is mentioned that is
applicant an orphan & is the applicant the first or the second child and
his father had died before attaining the age of 42 years, the petitioner had
written 'yes'.
4. In the aforesaid advertisement, there was a criteria for selection in
clause No.2.3, wherein it is mentioned that the scheme of marks in respect
of selection to the posts was stated to be total 100 marks' out of which 90
marks were assigned to the written examination and 10 marks for socio-
economic criteria and experience. For the purpose of socio-economic
criteria, it was further provided that if the applicant is the first or the
second child and his father had died before attaining the age of 42 years
or the first or the second child and his father had died before the applicant
had attained the age of 15 years then 05 marks are assigned to the
applicant. At the time of filing of the application form by the petitioner,
he did not upload any such certificate that he falls in any of the aforesaid
categories. Thereafter, at the time of scrutiny of documents i.e.on
27.02.2021, the petitioner produced Annexure P-15 dated 25.02.2021
which was issued by the Tehsildar Badli, District Jhajjar about two days
prior to the aforesaid scrutiny of documents with regard to his claim for
being awarded the aforesaid 05 marks because he falls in both the
2 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:058420
aforesaid categories but the aforesaid 05 marks were not awarded to the
petitioner and in this way his total marks in the written test i.e. 85 marks
were assigned to him as his total merit marks. The claim of the petitioner
is that had he been given those 05 marks to which he was entitled he
would have scored 90 marks and the last selected candidate also scored 90
marks as per the reply filed by the respondent-Commission. However, the
candidate who was kept in the waiting list had obtained 89 marks and
therefore the petitioner ought to have been at least kept in the waiting list
at an appropriate place by giving him 05 marks so that his case may have
been forwarded or considered for appointment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although at
the time of filling up the application form by the petitioner, he did not
upload and attach the requisite certificate issued by concerned Tehsildar
as the same was not available with him but at the time of scrutiny of
documents he produced the same but due to non-attaching of the aforesaid
certificate at the time of filling up the application form, he was not
granted the aforesaid benefit of 05 marks despite the fact that he was fully
eligible for being awarded the aforesaid 05 marks. He further submitted
that the death certificate of the father of the petitioner was uploaded
alongwith the application form and the same has been attached alongwith
the present petition at Annexure P-4.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that when the scrutiny of
document had taken place on 27.02.2021, he was already in possession of
the aforesaid certificate (Annexure P-15) which was issued to him on
25.02.2021 and submitted the same to the concerned scrutiny committee
when the documents of the petitioner were scrutinized and at that point of
time once the documents were submitted, the committee of the
3 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:058420
respondent-Commission ought to have considered his aforesaid document
because no prejudice could have been caused to the respondent-
Commission since it is not the case of the respondent-Commission that
the petitioner was not eligible for the aforesaid certificate nor the
authenticity of the aforesaid certificate is in dispute but the only dispute
raised by respondent-Commission is that the petitioner submitted the
aforesaid certificate after the cut-off date.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner applied
for the aforesaid post within the time frame as well as before the cut-off
date date and in the column of declaration as to whether he falls within
any of the category of socio-economic criteria for which he has written
'yes' and as such he ought to have been assigned 05 mark as he has
disclosed the entire information in the aforesaid application form and
therefore the mere fact that he did not upload the aforesaid document
(Annexure P-15) but it was supplied at the time of scrutiny of documents,
cannot dis-entitle him for being awarded 05 marks in accordance with the
selection criteria as aforesaid.
8. In this regard, he referred to judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in of Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda versus Chairman JEE,
2005 (9) SCC 779 and Ram Kumar Gijroya versus Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board and another, 2016 (4) SCC 754, a judgment of
Delhi High Court in Ms.Pushpa versus Government, NCT of Delhi and
others, C.M. No.17504/2008 in W.P. (C) No.9112/2008, and a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No.1199 of 2019, Haryana Staff
Selection Commission versus Subhash Chand and others to contend that
the mere fact that the certificate was given to respondent-recruiting
agency after the cut-off date would not have any effect and it is not a hard
4 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:058420
and fast rule. It cannot be put to a straight jacket formula and it is always
to be seen and considered in view of the facts and circumstances of each
and every case whether an applicant can be granted the benefit even if a
document has been supplied after the cut-off date.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana,
appearing on behalf of respondent-commission, has referred to various
clauses of the advertisement and while referring to the various clauses, he
submitted that it was mandatory for the petitioner to have attached all the
documents at the time when he applied for the post and it has been
specifically provided that the evaluation of marks was to be done on the
basis of documents attached/uploaded with the application form and
therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent-commission to have
considered any other document which was not uploaded alongwith the
application form and submitted that the petitioner had supplied the
aforesaid certificate at Annexure P-15 at the time of scrutiny of document
would be of no consequence. He further asserted that once a procedure
has been so stated in the advertisement itself, it was incumbent upon the
petitioner to have adhered to the same and in case of a violation of the
same, the respondent-Commission was within its rights to have not
awarded the aforesaid 05 marks.
10. Learned State counsel for the respondent-Commission also
stated that when notice of motion was issued by this Court on 07.04.2021,
it was also directed that 'in the meantime, one seat be kept vacant in case
all the seats have not been filled up under the General Category'. He
further submitted that he has instructions to state that one seat under the
General Category has been kept vacant in pursuance of the order passed
by this Court.
5 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:058420
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Before analyzing the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, the relevant portion of clauses of advertisement are
required to be referred. Clause 2.3, 2.4 (1), Note 8 and 9, 3.1 (3) and 3.2
are reproduced as under:-
"2.3 Criteria for Selection, Examination & Syllabus.
(i) The scheme of marks in respect of selection to the posts
shall comprise of total 100 marks, as detailed below.
Sr. No. Subject Marks
2. Socio-Economic criteria and 10
experience
"(ii) The 90 marks of written examination shall be
divided into two parts comprising:-
a) 75% weightage for General Awareness, Reasoning,
Maths, Science, Computer, English, Hindi and concerned or
relevant subject, as applicable.
b) 25% weightage for History, Current Affairs,
Literature, Geography, Civics, Environment, Culture etc.of
Haryana.
(iii) The 10 marks for socio-economic criteria and
experience shall be allocated as follows:-
a. xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx
b. if the applicant is:-
(i) a widow; or
(ii) the first or the second child and his father had died
before attaining the age of 42 years; or
6 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 7 2024:PHHC:058420
(iii) the first or the second child and his father had
died before the applicant had attained the age of 15 years." (5
marks)
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
"2.4 (1):- Certificate for an applicant whose father has
died issued by Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar: Refer Annexure AI, AII."
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
"Note 8.:- Qualification and other term and conditions
of eligibility will be determined with regard to the last date fixed for
receipt of online applications also termed as closing date."
"Note 9:- No individual information at any7 stage
shall be sent and hence all candidates should regularly visit the
Website & Public Notices in different Newspapers."
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx
"3.1(3):- Scanned copy of certificate claiming
weightage/marks under socio-economic criteria and
experience alongwith Haryana domicile Certificate issued by
competent authority."
" 3.2 Scrutiny of Documents:- Only those document which
are uploaded by the candidates shall be considered. If there
is any variation in the document uploaded and produced at
the time of scrutiny candidature shall be liable to be
cancelled. If any application is found without uploading
requisite supporting documents and other relevant
information, the candidate himself/herself shall be
responsible for that and his/her candidature would be liable
7 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 8 2024:PHHC:058420
to be cancelled due to lack of proper or correct
documents/information."
13. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions in the advertisement
would show that if an applicant is the first or second child and his father
had died before attaining the age of 42 years or the first or the second
child and his father had died before the applicant had attained the age of
15 years, then he was entitled for additional 05 marks under the socio-
economic criteria. So far as the aforesaid issue as to whether the
petitioner was falling in the aforesaid criteria of being awarded 05 marks
is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the respondent-
Commission in the present case. The objection which has been raised by
respondent-Commission is that a document or a certificate pertaining to
the same was not uploaded by the petitioner at the time of filing of the
application form.
14. As per Clause 2.4, it has been so stated that the certificate for
an applicant whose father has died issued by the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar
by reference to Annexures A-1 and A-2 is a part of the regulatory
framework. As per Note 9 of Clause 2.4 it has been so provided that no
individual information at any stage shall be sent and hence all candidates
should regularly visit the website & public newspapers. Clause 3.1
provides for the documents to be uploaded with the application form
being mandatory and as per clause 3.1 (3) it has been so provided that
scanned copy of certificate claiming weightage/marks under socio-
economic criteria and experience alongwith Haryana domicile certificate
issued by the competent authority is to be uploaded. Further in para
No.3.2 it has been so provided that at the time of scrutiny of documents
only those documents which are uploaded by the candidates shall be
8 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 9 2024:PHHC:058420
considered and in this way it is clear that as per the advertisement the
candidate is to upload the documents on which he is seeking claim at the
time of the filling up of the application form and as per the aforesaid
clauses of the advertisement only those documents which are uploaded are
to be considered.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
eligibility of the petitioner for being awarded the aforesaid 5 marks, is not
in dispute. The only issue is that at what stage he has submitted the
aforesaid document. Admittedly, he did not upload the aforesaid
certificate which was not available to him and he supplied the same to the
committee on 27.02.2021 and the aforesaid document Annexure P-15 was
issued to him on 25.02.2021. Therefore, obviously at the time of
submission of the application form, he did not have the aforesaid
certificate. In other words, weightage is to be given to the petitioner for
the aforesaid 5 marks for which his eligibility is not in dispute but the
time he produced the aforesaid document is being objected to by the
respondent-commission.
16. Therefore, it is essential to discuss the law on the issue with
reference to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court
as well as other High Courts. The learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to a judgment of Delhi High Court in Ms.Pushpa's case (supra).
In that case, the petitioner applied for the post of Staff Nurse under the
OBC category and the last date for submission of application form in the
advertisement was fixed for 21.01.2018 and the certificate was not
accepted as no proof was furnished by the petitioner therein to satisfy the
authorities that she belongs to the said category since she did not attach
the certificate because although she had applied for the certificate to the
9 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 10 2024:PHHC:058420
SDM for grant of OBC certificate but it was issued after the cut-off date
and therefore, the aforesaid petition of aforesaid Ms. Pushpa (supra) was
allowed by the Delhi High Court on the ground that the petitioner therein
was not at fault.
17. In Dolly Chhanda's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while discussing a case of a girl, who was a daughter of an Ex-
Serviceman and was discharged from Armed Forces on the ground of
disability also discussed the aforesaid issue as to what is the effect of
filing the certificate after the cutoff date. In that case, during the course of
scrutiny of papers, it was revealed that the certificate pertained to
"Disabled/killed in war/hostilities" and therefore, was not found to be
eligible, whereas, it ought to have been under the ground of "Permanently
Disabled" and thereafter, a fresh certificate was obtained by the aforesaid
petitioner of that case and relief was granted to her. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court while dealing with the principle of law observed that it is a general
rule that when a person applies for any post, a person must possess the
eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose, but at the
same time depending upon the facts of each and every case, there can also
be relaxation in the manner of submission of proof and it will not be
proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of
procedure and any infraction of any rule relating to the submission of the
proof need not necessarily result in rejection of the candidature. In other
words, it would mean that there can be no straightjacket formula for
rejecting a candidature only on the aforesaid reason. Paras No.7 and 9 of
the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying
for any course of study or a post, a person must
10 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 11 2024:PHHC:058420
possess the eligibility qualification on the last date
fixed for such purpose either in the admission
brochure or in application form, as the case may be,
unless there is an express provision to the contrary.
There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the
matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification
by the date fixed. This has to be established by
producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark-
sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of
reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates
have to be produced. These are documents in the
nature of proof of holding of particular qualification
or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for
benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a
case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of
submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply
any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of
procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily result in
rejection of candidature."
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
"9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to
reserved MI category. She comes from a very humble
background, her father was only a Naik in the armed forces.
He may not have noticed the mistake which had been
committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first
certificate dated 29.6.2003. But it does not mean that the
11 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 12 2024:PHHC:058420
appellant should be denied her due when she produced a
correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. Those
who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been
admitted. The view taken by the authorities in denying
admission to the appellant is wholly unjust and illegal."
18. In Subhash Chand's case (supra), a matter came up for
hearing before this Court in LPA, wherein the candidature was also
rejected on the ground that the condition was that the certificate should
have been issued prior to the last date of submission of online application
form. The matter was pertaining to getting reservation in EBPGC
category and the certificate was to be issued by the Welfare of Scheduled
Castes and Backward Classes Department, which was issued after the cut-
off date. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that it is
important to see that while eligibility i.e. possessing education
qualification should be possessed by the cut-off date for claiming benefit
of reservation, proof of eligibility to claim such reservation need not to be
submitted by the cut-off date. Even if proof of claim of eligibility for
reservation is produced beyond the cut-off date, the candidate can be
considered for the grant of the said benefit and cannot be denied relief.
The Division Bench of this Court in this regard also referred to judgments
of Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra) and Charles K.
Skaria and others versus Dr. C. Mathew and others, 1980 (2) SCC 752
and also referred to the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dolly Chhanda's case (supra). The relevant portion is produced as
under:-
xxx xxx-xxx-xxx
12 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 13 2024:PHHC:058420
"Thus the important thing to be seen is that
while eligibility i.e possessing education qualification should
be possessed by the cut off date, for claiming benefit of
reservation, proof of eligibility to claim such reservation
need not be submitted by cut off date. Even if proof of claim
of eligibility for reservation is produced beyond cut off date,
the candidate can be considered for grant of the said benefit
and cannot be denied relief.
In Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra), the
appellant had sought appointment to the post of Staff Nurse
under the OBC category, but the said certificate was not
submitted with the application and submitted after the last
date mentioned in the advertisement. The appellant was
therefore not selected on that ground, but the Supreme Court
held that the candidature of those candidates, who belonged
to reserved categories, could not be rejected simply on
account of late submission of caste certificate. The Supreme
Court held that the purpose of certificate is to enable the
authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he
belongs to a particular category and act thereon by giving
the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to the said
category. It was not as if the petitioners therein did not
belong to the reserved category prior to the cut off date or
that they acquire the status of belonging to the said category
only on the date of issuance of the certificate. It held that
necessitating upon a certificate to be issued prior to the cut
13 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 14 2024:PHHC:058420
off date would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rational
objective sought to be achieved.
In Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C.
Mathew and others, the Supreme Court held that the
candidates who got admission even though they had not
attached the certificate of having passed the diploma
alongwith their applications, could not have their admission
to a Post Graduate cancelled provided they had in fact
passed the diploma before the date fixed, but had submitted
the diploma with delay. It observed that the important
question is whether or not the candidate secured a diploma
before the final date of application for admission to the
degree course and if he did have the diploma some relaxation
in producing evidence of the diploma can be granted. It held
that the emphasis should be on the diploma and the proof
thereof subserves the factum of possession of diploma and is
not an independent factor. It held that what is essential is the
possession of the diploma before the given date and what is
ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To
make mandatory, the date of acquiring the qualification
before the last date for application make sense. But if it is
shown that the qualification has been acquired before the
relevant date, to invalidate the merit factor because proof
was adduced a few days later, would not be proper.
xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
19. The aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court was
assailed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission by filing a Civil
14 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 15 2024:PHHC:058420
Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on
31.01.2024.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case
(supra) also dealt with this important issue as to whether a candidate who
appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the
certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for
selection to the post under the OBC category or not. It also referred to the
judgment of the Delhi High Court is Ms.Pushpa's case (supra) and
another judgment in Tej Pal Singh & others versus Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, ILR 2001 Delhi 298. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the decision rendered in the case of Ms.Pushpa's case (supra) is in
conformity with the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
21. Learned State counsel, however, referred to a judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of
India and others 2007(4) SCC 54 to contend that it has been so observed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a candidate who was not holding
the requisite qualification on cut-off date, he will be ineligible and cannot
be considered at all. However, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable
from the present case in view of the fact that in the aforesaid judgment the
matter was pertaining to attaining the eligibility qualification till the cut-
off date whereas in the present case it is not the case of the respondents
that he was not entitled for the aforesaid benefit of weightage of 05 marks
but the only objection was that he submitted the requisite certificate after
the cut-off date and therefore the aforesaid judgment referred by learned
State counsel is not applicable in the present case.
15 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 16 2024:PHHC:058420
22. In the present case, the dispute is not with regard to the
eligibility of the petitioner to be given weightage of 05 marks but the
only dispute is that he has not uploaded the certificate alongwith the
application form and submitted the same at the time of scrutiny of
documents i.e. after the cut off date. It has been so observed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda's case (supra) that there can be no
straight jacket formula and in the facts and circumstances of each and
every case, direction can be issued because there can be no rigid principle
because it pertains to the domain and procedure and any infraction of any
rule related to the submission of proof need not necessarily result in
rejection of the candidature.
23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the view that it is a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and to issue directions to the respondent-
Commission in this regard.
24. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The
respondent-Commission is hereby directed to consider the case of the
petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid certificate (Annexure P-15) and
after processing the same, pass an order in this regard. In case he comes
on merit then shall forward the case to the concerned department for
further process especially in view of the fact that as per the learned State
counsel one post is kept vacant in pursuance of the interim order passed
by this Court. In case he finds merit in waiting list, then his case be
processed according to the procedure to be followed in the case of
candidates falling in waiting list in accordance with law.
16 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058420
CWP-7771-2021 (O&M) 17 2024:PHHC:058420
25. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondent-
Commission within a period of four months from today. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
26. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would also take
note of the contents of reply which has been filed by the respondent-
Haryana Staff Selection Commission wherein the expression 'Fatherless
certificate' has been mentioned. This Court is of the view that such kind
of expression used either in its reply or any document of the Commission,
is inappropriate and is an undignified expression. The respondent-
Commission shall look into this issue and take appropriate corrective
measures and, thereafter, file compliance report before this Court.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
25.04.2024
shweta Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
17 of 17
