Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sakshi Jain vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 January, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008506-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:008506-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(114) CWP-1361-2024
Decided on : 23.01.2024
Sakshi Jain ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr.S.P.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Ms.Sukriti Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Mr.Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.6.
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is to treat the present petitioner as a Sportsperson
representing the State of Punjab eligible under the Punjab Recruitment of
Sportsmen Rules, 1988 for being considered for the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate under the Sportsperson Category. Prayer
has also been made for taking a decision on the representation (Annexure
P-10) moved by the petitioner addressed to respondent No.5.
2. Petitioner had applied against advertisement No.2022103
published on 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-2) in which 5 seats were reserved for
Sportsperson quota and out of which 1 seat was reserved further for female
candidate. Petitioner claims to be a resident of Chandigarh having studied in
Chandigarh and has represented Chandigarh as a National Level Player in
Table-Tennis and had won positions in the competitions with Gradation
Certificate.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008506-DB
3. It is her case that the 4 posts are still vacant and 1 is under
consideration with the respondents and she scored 525.06 marks. She
successfully cleared the preliminary and mains examination and appeared in
the interview on 01.10.2023 against Roll No.1837 and scored 525.6 marks and
got 145 rank. However she had applied only as a General Category Candidate
which would be clear from her pleadings and is now subsequently seeking
consideration under the Sportsperson Category on the sole ground that vacant
seats are available. Therefore, considering that Chandigarh is the capital of
State of Punjab and the requirement for claiming reservation under the
Sportsperson Category it would not be necessary to have represented the State
of Punjab and thus the benefit should also be granted if she had represented the
U.T. Chandigarh also, being the capital of State of Punjab.
4. The argument which is now sought to be raised might be
attractive but the fact remains that the petitioner never, at any point of time,
while applying for the said post, agitated for her grievance. She neither filed
any representation at that point of time or approached this Court seeking the
said benefit. It is only after having gone through the recruitment process and
having remained unsuccessful in the General Category having the rank of 145
against the 52 posts for the General Category which were duly advertised, she
has put-forth her case. The advertisement in question specifies under clause
13.2 that the candidate has to specify as to which category he/she wants to be
considered and once opted cannot be changed under any circumstance.
Reliance can be placed upon the observations made by the Apex Court in
Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad &
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008506-DB
others, 2005 (12) SCC 498 wherein the Division Bench had allowed the
candidate to change the category and it was noticed that the candidate had
passed the preliminary examination as a General candidate and at the
subsequent stage of the main examination, cannot avail the reservation on the
ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later
stage. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"7. 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 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 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.
No costs."
5. It is also settled principle that the advertisement or a prospectus
issued has a force of law and reliance can be placed upon six Full Benches of
this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab 1993 (2) PLR
212, Raj Singh Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University 1994(2) S.C.T. 766,
Sachin Gaur Vs. Punjabi University 1996(1) S.C.T. 837, Rahul Prabhakar
Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997(3) S.C.T. 526, Indu
Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab 1999(4) S.C.T. 113 and Rupinder
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008506-DB
Singh and others Vs. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education &
Industrial Training, Chandigarh and others 2001(2) S.C.T. 726 have held
to that effect.
6. In such circumstances, the petitioner was bound by the
advertisement in question and now cannot claim the said benefit. It has also
been averred that there are instructions that unfilled Sports Category seats
which have gone vacant would have to be filled up from the General Category
Candidates and the State is already considering the same and thus, the
petitioner cannot clamor for the said benefit. The action of the respondents is
as per the necessary instructions and therefore, the rights of other candidates in
the General Category would also be jeopardized if the case of the petitioner is
to be considered since apparently, the petitioner does not fall within the zone
of consideration having the rank of 145 and therefore, the same cannot be
expanded to that far. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that the change of category at this stage at the fag end on account of the fact
that the seats are not filled up is not permissible as per the settled principle.
7. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any
ground to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction and the present writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
rd
January 23 , 2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008506-DB
4 of 4
