Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 May, 2024
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
LPA-1168-2024 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114
LPA-1168-2024 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 09.05.2024
Jitender Kumar .....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: Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
Delay Application
1. Application for condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the appeal is
allowed, in view of averments made in the application duly supported by affidavit.
2. Delay condoned.
3. CM stands disposed of.
Main Case
4. Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is to the judgment
dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-2025-2024
whereby, the learned Single Judge chose not to grant any relief to the petitioner as
such.
5. The relief claimed as such was that reasonable opportunity to the
petitioner had not been granted for consideration in the process of selection
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
against Advertisement No.5 of 2019 (Annexure P-1) for the post of Clerk. The
petitioner could not give his application for coming in the zone of consideration in
the revised list being out of station and the advertisement being of the year 2019.
No message or e-mail being sent to him was the ground as such for filing the writ
petition.
6. The learned Single Judge noticed that 4858 posts of Clerks of Group-
C were to be filled in various Departments/Corporations/Boards etc., as per the
advertisement. The Commission had revised the result on 17.05.2022 and the
candidates had been called for scrutiny of documents. The information had been
posted on the website and the candidates were required to get the information
from the website only and no individual letters were to be sent. It was held that it
was the duty of the petitioner to remain vigilant with regard to his application
submitted by regularly visiting the website to know whether he was to appear for
scrutiny of documents or not. It was noticed that the ground in the writ petition as
such was contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the
petitioner should have been more vigilant to visit the website to know the updates
being posted by the respondent-Commission. Having not appeared for the
scrutiny of documents, he could not have been called for further participation and
the non-appearance as such of the petitioner for scrutiny of documents was due to
his own fault and not that of the respondent. The selection having already been
finalized and candidates having been recruited, no relief was, thus, granted.
7. Counsel for the appellant has repeated the arguments as such that
since the advertisement was of the year 2019, the was no intimation regarding the
result being revised on 17.05.2022 and, therefore, the appellant had lost contact
and was not aware.
8. We have perused the advertisement in question. Apparently, the
terms of the advertisement are very clear vide which the petitioner is bound, as has
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
been held time and again by various Full Benches of this Court. 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 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
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
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."
9. Sub-Clause 9 and 18 of Note of Clause 2.4 of the advertisement
(Annexure P-1) read thus:-
"9. No individual information at any stage shall be
sent and hence all candidates should regularly visit the
Website & Public Notices in different Newspapers.
18. In case of any guidance/information/clarification
regarding the online filling of the application form and
Advertisement the candidate can call at helpline
No.01725143700 on all working days from 9:00 A.M. To 5:00
P.M."
10. Clause 3.2 reads thus:-
"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 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."
11. Apparently, when the result was notified on 17.05.2022, on the basis
of which the petitioner is seeking his claim, the scrutiny of documents was to be
done from 21.05.2022 to 06.06.2022 and the candidates were supposed to bring
the documents. It was categorically provided that a candidate who does not
appear for scrutiny of documents on the scheduled time, date and and slot, no
further opportunity was to be given under Note I and II of revised result
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
(Annexure P-5) which read thus:-
NOTE:- 1. The Scrutiny of Documents of the above
candidates will be held from 21.05.2022 to 06.05.2022. The
candidates are advised to report at 08.00 AM at Parade
Ground Sector-5, Panchkula. They are also directed to bring
all original documents set of self attested copies of all
documents, one ID Proof, copy of downloaded applications
form and filled scrutiny form.
2. In case a candidate does not appear for Scrutiny of
Documents on Scheduled date, time and slot, no further
opportunity will be given thereafter.
3. Candidates can download their admit card for scrutiny of
documents from 19.05.2022. Candidates shall report at the
date and time mentioned in the admit card.
4. All above candidates shall fill their department
preference online using their login Id and password from
21.05.2022 to 27.05.2022.
5. All Photostat copy of documents to be submitted during
physical scrutiny of documents shall be clear and legible.
Issuing date, issuing authority and complete header/footer
should be clearly visible. Documents without issuing date and
issuing authority will be out rightly rejected and candidate
will himself/herself be responsibility for this lapse.
6. Detailed Schedule for of scrutiny is available on the
website of Commission.
7. While every care has been taken in preparing and
uploading the result, possibility of inadvertent/technical
errors cannot be ruled out. The Commission reserves the right
to rectify the same later on.
8. The result is also available on the website of HSSC i.e.
www.hssc.gov.
Sd/-
Secretary
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
Dated:- 17.05.2022"
12. Separate notice was also issued on the same date, which provided the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
methodology as such. A perusal of the said clauses would show that the
recruitment was to be completed within a restricted time frame and the candidates
had to submit all documents and the responsibility of submission of documents lay
with the candidates. The details of the documents were also mentioned. Clause
Nos.6, 7, 8, 14, 19 and 20 of the abovesaid notice read thus:-
"6. Thumb and facial biometric will also be carried
out during scrutiny of documents of all candidates and in case
of any mismatch their candidature will be cancelled and
candidates will be debarred from future recruitments.
7. Since the recruitment is to be completed in
restricted time frame as per court order, so no chance to any
absentee candidates will be given for scrutiny of documents.
Candidates shall be present on the date and time mentioned in
the admit card. Candidate's documents will not be verified if
he/she does not appear on the scheduled date, slot and time.
Even if he appears on any other date when scrutiny of other
candidates is scheduled, he will not be given any opportunity
and no representation in this regard will be entertained by
commission and no separate information will be sent to any
candidate.
8. A candidate has to submit all his documents at
one time and no opportunity to change or add any document
will be given after his scheduled date and time under any
circumstance.
14. Documents shall be arranged in following
sequence
i) Scrutiny Form
ii) Online application form
iii) Matriculation certificate
iv) 12th Certificate
v) Graduation or any higher qualification
vi) Domicile
vii) Caste certificate
viii) DESM eligility certificate/battle casualty certificate/ESM
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
NOC and discharge book
ix) Socio exonomic
a) undertaking of No Job
b) fatherless/ widow
c) De-notified of Nomadic Trible
d) Experience
x) Aadhaar or any ID proof
xi) Any other document
19. Candidates shall bring the filled scrutiny form
during scrutiny of documents which is enclosed herewith. It
should be filled by candidate in his/her own handwriting.
20. Claim under socio-economic criteria, if any, shall
be admissible to those candidates only who have claimed and
uploaded the relevant documents at the time filing online
applications."
13. The whole purpose as such of the Schedule is, thus, is to ensure that
the recruitment process is completed at the earliest. The appellant might have
been in the zone of consideration but he chose not to appear before the
Commission at that point of time. Apparently, he filed CWP-15365-2022,
Jitender Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another wherein, the same relief as such
was claimed which had already been sought to consider his case. The said writ
was never pressed and taken to the logical end but was withdrawn on 12.10.2023
(Annexure P-7) with liberty to approach the respondents. The same reads thus:-
"After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitoiner (sic. petitioner) intends
to approach the respondents for the redressal of his girevance
(sic. grievance) hence, the present petition may kinldy (sic.
kindly) be disposed of having been not pressed any further
with the liberty as prayed for.
Ordered accordingly."
14. It is thereafter only a representation dated 28.11.2023 (Annexure P-8)
was filed to the Commission for redressal as such and then the present writ
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064968-DB
petition is filed. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from
any infirmity with would warrant interference. The co-ordinate Bench in LPA-
285-2023, Gaurav Sangwan vs. State of Haryana and others decided on
16.03.2023 has stressed upon that for every vacant post advertised for recruitment,
there is no dearth of eligible and qualified candidates vying for it and, therefore,
the selection involves intense competition. It has further been observed that a
candidate who has not been vigilant and has squandered the opportunity with his
casual attitude cannot seek the indulgence of a writ Court merely on the plea of his
merit to deny other candidates. Making such an exception would not only
endlessly stretch the recruitment process, but also put its sanctity under a cloud.
15. Thus, for additional reason that he had earlier preferred a writ petition
and having chosen not to press for it, we are of the considered opinion that even
the second writ petition was not maintainable on the same cause of action.
Accordingly, we do not find any plausible reason as such to entertain the present
appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
09.05.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable No
8 of 8
