Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana ... on 30 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059379-DB
2024:PHHC:059379-DB
LPA-877-2024 -1-
(122)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-877-2024
Date of decision : 30.04.2024
Gurpreet Singh .......Appellant
Versus
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant.
****
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ( Oral )
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the order dated
15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-2599-2023, whereby
the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the writ petitioner (appellant
herein) as such to quash the selection of the private respondent as Assistant
Scientist Nematology, and the prayer to direct the respondent University to
grant five marks to the writ petitioner for National Eligibility Test (in short,
'NET') qualification and prepare the merit list.
2. As per the undisputed facts, the private respondent secured 60.71
marks, whereas the writ petitioner secured 59.87 marks, and therefore was
below in merit as such. The benefit of five marks now sought by the writ
petitioner on account of NET qualification, increasing his marks to 64.87
which would take his merit higher than the private respondent, is being denied.
The reason as such for denial is that there is lower benchmark for appearing in
NET examination for reserved candidate to the extent of 40% marks against
50% marks for general category candidate. The writ petitioner got 47.56%
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059379-DB
2024:PHHC:059379-DB
marks and thus had never cleared NET examination against the general
category benchmark. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge, placed
reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Government (NCT of Delhi)
and others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and others, (2019) 10 SCC 120, to come to
the conclusion that having not secured normal pass marks for general category
candidate, eligibility for general category vacancy is not secured and,
therefore, the claim could not have been made by the writ petitioner. Thus, the
writ petition has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently placed reliance
upon judgment of the Apex Court in Vikas Sankhala and others Vs. Vikas
Kumar Agarwal and others, AIR 2016 SC 5265.
4. The said judgment was considered in Pradeep Kumar's case
(supra), which is a three Judges Bench decision, and it was specifically
observed that if the interpretation, as contended by learned counsel for the
appellant, is accepted, then it would amount to applying a relaxed standard in
selecting a reserved category candidate and such candidate will have to be
counted against reserved vacancies. It was thus held that if the view taken in
Vikas Sankhala's case (supra) is accepted, it would lead to dilution of merit in
the unreserved category. We have already mentioned the merit placement as
such of the private respondent, who is apparently higher in merit. The
observations made in paragraphs 21.1, 24 and 26 of the judgment in Pradeep
Kumar's case (supra) read as under :-
"21.1 In Vikas Sankhala, the Court considered the
implication of the Circular dated 11.05.2011 issued by the
Department of Personnel, government of Rajasthan, (A. Gr.
II) bearing ref. no. No. F.7(1) DOP/A-II/99 that expressly
allowed migration to the unreserved category irrespective
of any concession availed by the candidate of the reserved
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059379-DB
2024:PHHC:059379-DB
category if he/she had secured more marks than the last
Unreserved category candidate who is selected. But here the
OMs dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018 issued by the
Department of Personnel & Training would bear
consideration. Contrary to the circular dated 11.05.2011 in
Vikas Sankhala (supra), the two OMs referred by Ms Divan,
issued specific instructions to the effect that when a relaxed
standard is applied in selecting a reserved category
candidate, in age limit, experience, qualification, additional
chances in written examination etc., such candidates will be
counted against reserved vacancies.
x x x
24. It is important to keep in mind that the respondents
are competing for general category vacancies. All others in
this group have obtained their CTET eligibility
qualification, securing the normal pass marks without
availing any relaxation of pass norms. On the other hand,
the respondents despite their lesser marks in the CTET
examination, could qualify only because they availed the
relaxation benefits as OBC category examinees. Their
eligibility qualification is secured under relaxed norms
meant for OBC category and therefore we do not think it is
proper to consider them to be eligible for the general
category vacancies and contention to the contrary is
unacceptable.
x x x
26. As earlier discussed, this case concerns
qualifications obtained with concession in pass marks. Such
concession would have a direct impact on standards of
competence and merit in the recruitment of Special
Education Teachers. The principles of reservation under the
Constitution of India are intended to be confined to a
specifically earmarked category and the unreserved
category must be protected to avoid dilution of competence
and merit. If Vikas Sankhala (supra) is interpreted shorn of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059379-DB
2024:PHHC:059379-DB
its peculiar facts, as has been suggested by the respondents'
counsel, it would in our perception, considering that
respondents secured the qualification under relaxed norms,
would lead to dilution of merit in the unreserved category.
The argument made to the contrary by the respondents is
therefore rejected."
In such circumstances, the observations by a three Judges' Bench have a
higher precedential value, more so when they have set aside the judgment of
the High Court which had placed reliance upon Vikas Sankhala 's case (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to distinguish the
judgment in Pradeep Kumar's case (supra) on the ground that in that case, the
petitioner was from a different State.
6. We have to see the principle, which has been laid in the
judgments and, therefore, we do not feel that there is any reasonable ground as
such to take a different view.
7. The writ petitioner thus came into the zone of consideration for
eligibility only on account of the fact that he had the benefit of the reserved
category and otherwise he could not have come into the zone of consideration.
In the absence of any malafide as such alleged, we do not feel that the learned
Single Judge erred in any manner in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner.
8. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and
the same is dismissed in limine.
( G.S. SANDHAWALIA )
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
( LAPITA BANERJI )
JUDGE
April 30, 2024
ndj
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
4 of 4
