Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivam Sharma vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
2024:PHHC:009237
CWP-8677-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109 CWP-8677-2017
Date of Decision: 24.01.2024
Shivam Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.P.M.Kansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sandeep Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of result dated
17.04.2017 (Annexure P-1) to the extent his candidature has been rejected
for the post of Junior Technical Assistant.
2. The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement of the respondent
applied for the post of Junior Technical Assistant. The petitioner participated
in the written test wherein he secured 81.75 marks. The petitioner belongs
to general category and there were 300 seats. The petitioner was not
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
2024:PHHC:009237
subjected to interview because respondent formed an opinion that the
petitioner is not complying with requirement of essential qualification.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has secured Bachelors Degree in Engineering with Chemistry, thus, he
complied with prescribed qualification still respondent has rejected
candidature of the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relies upon
judgment of Delhi High Court in Neeraj Pal and ors vs. Central
Warehousing Corporation, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13016.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
Uttrakhand High Court in Tarun Pal vs. Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food & Public Division, 2018 SCC Online Utt 138 has rejected claim of an
identically placed candidate. The petitioner was having Chemistry Subject
in one semester, thus, he cannot be considered for the post of Junior
Technical Engineer. Mere study of subjects in few semesters as ancillary
subjects would not render a candidate eligible for the post of JTA as the
requirement of job would not be fulfilled. The petitioner is deliberately
misreading the contents of the advertisement.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. The conceded position emerging from record is that the
petitioner is holding Degree of Bachelors in Engineering. The petitioner had
studied Chemistry in one of the semester. The petitioner participated in the
written test and secured more marks than the last selected candidate. The
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
2024:PHHC:009237
claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the sole ground that he does not
fulfill essential qualification criteria prescribed in the advertisement.
7. The Delhi High Court in Neeraj Pal's case (supra) has
considered advertisement in question and has held that requirement of the
advertisement is not to have Degree in Chemistry, Zoology or Bio-chemistry
whereas it requires that degree should be with Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-
chemistry, thus, candidates having studied Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-
chemistry as ancillary subjects cannot be denied opportunity to participate in
the selection process.
8. It is apt to notice that counsel for respondent expressed his
inability to controvert the findings of the judgment of Delhi High Court as
well as applicability of said judgment to the facts of the present case.
9. On 04.01.2024, counsel for the respondents had sought time to
ascertain possibility to issue appointment letter to petitioner considering his
fresh appointment in 2024. Though the respondent is unable to dispute the
applicability of judgment of Delhi High Court yet pleaded that judgment of
Uttarakhand High Court should be considered. Delhi High Court while
passing judgment in Neeraj Pal's case (supra) has noted judgment of
Uttrakhand High Court in Tarun Pal's case (supra). The relevant extracts
of the judgment in Neeraj Pal's case (supra) read as :
13. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submits
that the job profile of "Junior Technical Assistant"
demands that the candidate should have been
enough exposure to the subjects as mentioned in
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
2024:PHHC:009237
the recruitment rules and accordingly, the
answering respondent has been recruiting the
candidates for the post of JTA who are having a
Degree in Agriculture or who have studied the
required subjects i.e. Chemistry, Zoology or Bio-
Chemistry during all semesters/years in their
Degree course. Mere studying of the subjects in a
few semesters as ancillary subject/optional subject
will not equip the candidate with the sufficient
knowledge/expertise to deal with the complex
technical matters at the warehouse. He further
submitted that it was nowhere mentioned in the
reply dated 26.04.2017 that candidate require a
Degree in Zoology/Chemistry/Bio Chemistry as
alleged by the petitioners. Mere study of subjects
in few semesters as ancillary subjects would not
render a candidate eligible for the post of JTA, as
the requirement of job would not be fulfilled. The
petitioners have completely misunderstood or
deliberately attempting to misconstrue the contents
of the advertisement and the reply dated
26.04.2017 to secure employment with the
answering respondent even though they do not
qualify the prescribed minimum qualification.
X X X X
17. As per the advertisement dated 20.09.2016,
the educational qualification required for the post
of "Junior Technical Assistant" is 'Degree in
Agriculture or a Degree with Zoology, Chemistry
or Biochemistry as one of the subjects.' It was
never clarified by the respondent no. 2 that the
applicants require a degree in Zoology, Chemistry
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
2024:PHHC:009237
or Bio-chemistry before reply dated 26.04.2017 to
the representation of petitioner no. 2.
X X X X
21. I am conscious that one of the candidate
namely Tarun Pal approached the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital but lost his legal battle in
the writ petition and the appeal as well whereby it
is observed that the question as to whether he
studied Bio-chemistry as one of the papers in 4th
semester would fulfil the requirement is a matter to
be understood from the stand point of the employer
particularly having regard to the nature of the
duties to be performed by the selected candidate.
X X X X
27. The word 'with' connotes inclusion and not
exclusion whereas the word 'in' connotes specific
enclosure. The intention of the legislatures were
quite clear while drafting of the rules. The word
'in' had been sued in the former portion of the
Rules. Had it been the intention of the legislature
that the Degree should specifically be 'in'
Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-chemistry, the said
word would have been used instead of 'with' as
has been done in case of the subject of Agriculture.
Thus, respondent no. 2 clearly failed to apply
doctrine of literal interpretation in the instant
matter. The legislature is presumed to have used
the language it actually intends to use, keeping in
view the legislative intent. The use of words in the
rule/provisions had to be understood in its
ordinary sense. It is quite evident from the reading
of the rule that the legislature intended to use the
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
2024:PHHC:009237
word 'with' in inclusive manner rather than
exclusive. The use of the word 'in' is quite specific
as in the case of Degree in Agriculture. Therefore,
the only clear and natural meaning that emerges is
that the applicant must possess a Degree along
with one of the specified subjects. Therefore, the
plain and ordinary reading of the aforesaid rule
makes it quite clear that the applicant must possess
a Degree with Zoology, Chemistry or Bio-
chemistry as one of the subjects. Hence,
respondent no. 2 had issued the final result without
appreciating the aforesaid interpretation of the
rule in question.
10. This Court finds it appropriate to subscribe opinion of Delhi
High Court than of Uttrakhand High Court.
11. In the present petition cause of action arose in 2017 and in the
same year, petitioner approached this Court. On account of Covid-19 and
heavy Board, matter could not be finally adjudicated within a short span.
There is no lapse on the part of petitioner. If petitioner is denied effective
relief on account of efflux of time, it would not be true justice. It is settled
law that justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done.
Supreme Court Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, (1988) 4 SCC
284 has held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer because of act of Court.
The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
8. It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of
the fault of the court or delay in the procedure. Broom
has stated the maxim "actus curiae neminem
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
2024:PHHC:009237
gravabit" -- an act of court shall prejudice no man.
Therefore, having regard to the time normally consumed
for adjudication, the ten years' exemption or holiday
from the application of the Rent Act would become
illusory, if the suit has to be filed within that time and be
disposed of finally. It is common knowledge that unless a
suit is instituted soon after the date of letting it would
never be disposed of within ten years and even then
within that time it may not be disposed of. That will make
the ten years holiday from the Rent Act illusory and
provide no incentive to the landlords to build new houses
to solve problem of shortages of houses. The purpose of
legislation would thus be defeated. Purposive
interpretation in a social amelioration legislation is an
imperative irrespective of anything else.
12. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed and
accordingly allowed. As agreed by petitioner, the appointment of petitioner,
for all purposes, would be considered as fresh appointment of 2024.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
24.01.2024
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009237
7 of 7
