Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anoopam Sharma And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038839-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:038839-DB
(107) LPA-308-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 19.03.2024
Anoopam Sharma and others
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Dr. Pawan Kumar Aryan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2023 passed in
CWP-9464-2017 'Anoopam Sharma and others Vs. State of Haryana
and others', whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was
dismissed.
2. The case of the writ petitioners was to consider them for
recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher under Differently-
abled/Handicapped Category, in terms of the Advertisement dated
08.11.2012 issued by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board. The
same was rejected by the learned Single Judge by noticing that they had
not applied for the said post against Advertisement No. 2/2012. The cut-
off-date was 08.12.2012 and it was noticed by the learned Single Judge
that HTET Certificate was only issued on 31.01.2017 and, therefore, the
writ petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification. The
advertisement being magna carta for the purpose of determining the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038839-DB
LPA-308-2023 (O&M)
eligibility, the applicants having not possessed the qualification by the cut-
off-date and the selection process in pursuance of the said advertisement
having completed and candidates having been appointed with the
concerned department, were the reasons which prevailed with the Learned
Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.
3. A perusal of the writ petition itself would go on to show that
in paragraph No.2(d) of the writ petitioners themselves had pleaded that
they were unable to apply for post, as they had not qualified the HTET
Test 2011. The said selection has been subject matter of consideration
before two Division Benches and eventually it has culminated in the final
order passed by the Apex Court. The first litigation in CWP No.346 of
2013 'Antim Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others' was decided on
29.04.2015 (Annexure P-4) and other connected cases, wherein the issue
was that the candidates who had not taken the test before the cut-off-date
whether they could be considered eligible. The second round of litigation
had been initiated on account of the concession given by the learned
Advocate General by treating them as eligible. Resultantly, on account of
the interim orders passed in the second round, the State Government had
juggled the list of candidates, whereby even candidates who had not
passed the test by the cut-off-date came to the zone of consideration.
Resultantly, in LPA No.912 of 2016 'Paramjeet Kaur and another Vs.
State of Haryana and others', the matter was decided on 20.07.2022 by
a Bench headed by one of us G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The matter was then
taken to the Apex Court in SLP No.25269 of 2022 'Vikas Kumar and
others Vs. State of Haryana and others' wherein the State Government
had again given a concession, as the State was willing to accommodate all
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038839-DB
LPA-308-2023 (O&M)
the three categories of candidates. Resultantly, certain directions had been
issued and eventually, the Apex Court vide order dated 13.09.2022 had
held that 2012 selection will stand closed with the arrangement which had
been directed by the Apex Court. Relevant portion of the said order reads
as under:-
"(i) The total number of advertised posts i.e. 9870 to be
filled up first from the selected candidates declared in the
result dated 14.08.2014.
(ii) In the event, the selected candidates from the above
category do not join, then the remaining vacancies shall be
filled up from the list of waitlisted candidates declared
along with successful candidates on 14.08.2014.
(iii) After filling up of the 9870 vacancies as provided
above, the 2233 candidates who qualified the HTET after
the cutoff date, sometimes in June, 2013 will be appointed
as per their inter se merit enbloc below the above 9870
candidates.
(iv) In case, there still remain any waitlisted candidates
from the waitlisted list of 14.08.2014, who could not be
accommodated in the advertised posts of 9870, will be
appointed enbloc as per their merit below the 2233
candidates.
(v) The seniority will be as per their merit position in their
respective lists.
(vi) No dispute for seniority would be entertained of any
candidate inter se different lists.
(vii) No claim for seniority or for any arrears would be
entertained for any period not worked by the candidates of
any of the above lists.
(viii) Salary would be paid for the period, for which such
candidates have actually worked but not paid salary after
due verification of their working both from the records and
physically.
(ix) The 2012 selections will stand closed with the above
arrangement.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038839-DB
LPA-308-2023 (O&M)
(x) Exercising our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution, we increase the number of advertised posts
beyond 9870 to accommodate the candidates as directed
above and no more.
(xi) All the appeals are disposed of as directed above.
(xii) The impugned judgment shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent."
4. A perusal of the abovesaid directions would go on to show
that the only concession which was granted by the Apex Court was
regarding the candidates who had qualified the HTET after the cut-off-date
sometimes in June, 2013. It is the appellants own case that they had only
qualified the HTET Test on 31.01.2017, which was much later. The writ
petitioners had filed the writ petition in the year 2017, which has been
disposed of by the Learned Single Judge on the ground that they had not
applied for the post in question and they were not eligible, which is the
conceded position in the pleadings also. Rather the Coordinate Bench on
06.11.2023 had asked the appellants to file an affidavit to clarify which of
the four writ petitioners had taken part in the selection process of the
advertisement of the year 2012. In pursuance of the said order, CM-1764-
LPA-2024 has been filed for placing on record affidavit alongwith
annexures. In the affidavit, it has been stated that writ petitioner Nos.1
and 4 had applied for the respective posts and were not allowed to
participate in the selection process and had been marked absent. It is their
own case that the result and certificate of eligibility were not issued in the
year 2011 and they were only released on 31.07.2017 after 6 years
(Annexure P-5 colly.). The details of petitioner Nos.1 & 4 and roll
numbers have been mentioned. In such circumstances, the question of
granting any relief to the persons who are not eligible has been rightly
declined by the learned Single Judge.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038839-DB
LPA-308-2023 (O&M)
5. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted, in view of the
fact that the matter has now been finalized by the Apex Court, in the terms
recorded above. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present letters patent
appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. All pending civil
miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
19.03.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : √Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes √No
5 of 5
