Punjab-Haryana High Court
Renu Devi vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034876-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:034876-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(109) LPA-667-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 12.03.2024
Renu Devi ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
G.S. Sandhawalia, ACJ (Oral)
CM-1628-LPA-2024
1. Application for condoning the delay of 1 day in filing the
present appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application,
duly supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 1 day in filing the
present appeal is hereby condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
CM-1629-LPA-2024
3. Allowed, as prayed for.
4. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-667-2024
5. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
20.01.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-1261-2024
whereby the writ petitioner's claim for consideration to the post of
Computer Instructor regarding advertisement No.12/2019 under the BCB
category has been rejected.
6. The Learned Single Judge noticed that while applying for the
said post, the writ petitioner had uploaded 5th semester certificate of
diploma dated 08.04.2010 along with her form, photocopy of which is on
record as Annexure P-2 herein along with the typed copy. The said diploma
in Computer Engineering consisted of six semesters and therefore, she was
required to produce the 6th semester certificate prior to the closing date
which is 20.08.2019. At the time of scrutiny of documents, she
produced another Diploma in Computer Science Engineering from a private
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034876-DB
(109) LPA-667-2024 (O&M) -2-
University, i.e. Calorx Teachers University based in Gujarat dated
19.09.2013 (Annexure P-5). The same having not been accepted by the
respondents, Learned Single Judge found that since in the application form,
she never claimed that she had Diploma from the private University as she
could never produce the Diploma from the Haryana State Board of
Technical Education which was the requisite requirement. The plea of
inadvertent mistake that she had filled the form from a Cyber Café was
rejected. The writ petitioner thus not having a three year Diploma prior to
the closing date was another ground for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. While placing reliance upon the advertisement, it was held that
if the candidate does not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions or that the
information furnished was found to be false or incorrect, her candidature
was liable to be cancelled. Reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE & others, 2005 (9) SCC 779 was
accordingly rejected on the ground that the basic eligibility/qualification
was to be possessed on the last date of submission of the application form
and the writ petitioner wanted to submit altogether a new Diploma from a
private University which was never appended at the time of applying to the
post and to consider the same was accordingly rejected.
8. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that
having the requisite qualification, the same should have been considered.
9. We are of the considered opinion that the said argument is not
liable to be accepted. It is settled principle that the appellant was bound by
the terms of the advertisement which specifically mentioned as per Clause
3.1 that the scanned copy of the essential qualifications were to be uploaded
and the Diploma certificate was one of the documents which had to be
placed on record along with the application form. Clause 3.2 provides that
only those documents which were uploaded by the candidate were to be
considered and if there is any variation, the candidature was liable to be
cancelled. Said clause reads as under:
"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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034876-DB
(109) LPA-667-2024 (O&M) -3-
documents and other relevant information, the candidate
himself/herself shall be responsible for that and his/her candidature
would be liable to be cancelled due to lack of proper or correct
documents/information."
10. Thus, a fallback at this stage on another certificate is
unwarranted for. The consideration sought is for the post of Computer
Instructor and therefore, the claim that the form was filled up in Cyber Café
by an employee of the Cyber Café is not liable to be accepted. In case the
writ petitioner already possessed the certificate, there was no necessity of
joining another course of same nature or its equivalence since she
apparently passed out in the year 2013 from the University at Gujarat and if
she had appeared in her 5th semester in December, 2009 and only 6 months
was left for her to do another semester would only go on to show that the
said certificate was not liable to be accepted.
11. The proposition of law that the advertisement has a binding
force and would govern the parties stands established beyond a cavil of
doubt. 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 v. Punjabi University
1996(1) S.C.T. 837, Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University,
Jalandhar 1997(3) S.C.T. 526, Indu Gupta v. Director of Sports,
Punjab 1999(4) S.C.T. 113 and Rupinder Singh and others v. The
Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training,
Chandigarh and others 2001(2) S.C.T. 726 have held to that effect. The
relevant observations made in Rahul Prabhakar's case (supra) read as
under:-
"7. A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State
of Punjab, (1993) 4 SLR 673 : 1993(4) SCT 328 (P&H) (FB) had to
consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in
the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued
for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open
to alteration. In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, 1994
(4) RSJ 289 : 1994(2) SCT 766 (P&H) (FB) another Full Bench of
this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be
bound by the information supplied in the admission form and
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:034876-DB
(109) LPA-667-2024 (O&M) -4-
cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The
Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that
eligibility for admission to a Course has to be seen according to the
prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the
admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the
prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full Bench of this Court
in Sachin Gaur v. Punjabi University, 1996 (1) RSJ 1 : 1996 (1)
SCT 837 (P&H) (FB) took the view that there has to be a cut off
date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed
afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have
been followed in CWP No. 6756 of 1996 by the three of us
constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the
provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common
Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly
complied with. No modification can be made by the Court in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
12. The eligibility thus has to be considered by the Board on the
cut-off date. The appellant did not even had the eligibility as she herself
had appended the 5th semester certificate and not having passed out and
therefore, she was not even eligible to sit in the examination.
13. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal
is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
th
March 12 , 2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
