Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanchan Lata vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064886-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(105) LPA-1347-2023 (O&M)
Kanchan Lata ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
(2) LPA-1924-2023 (O&M)
Vikas Jakhar ......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. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-3449-LPA-2023 in LPA-1347-2023&
CM-4822-LPA-2023 in LPA-1924-2023
Applications for condonation of delay of 273 and 299 days in re-
filing the appeals, are allowed, in view of the averments made in the
applications, duly supported by affidavit. Delay of 273 and 299 days in re-
filing the appeals is condoned.
CMs stand disposed of.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064886-DB
LPA-1347 & 1924-2023 (O&M)
CM-3448-LPA-2023 in LPA-1347-2023 &
CM-4821-LPA-2023 in LPA-1924-2023
Applications for condonation of delay of 47 filing the appeals, are
allowed, in view of the averments made in the applications, duly supported by
affidavit. Delay of 47 days in filing the appeals is condoned.
CMs stand disposed of.
LPA-1347 & 1924-2023 (O&M)
1. Consideration in the present letters patent appeals is sought of the
order of the learned Single Judge dated24.08.2022whereby three writ petitions
were disposed of, lead case of which was CWP-18290-2022 'Vikas Jakhar
Vs. State of Haryana and others'. By virtue of the said order, the claim for
higher merit and quashing of the service allocation in the final result and the
select list dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P-5) was rejected.
2. The claim was based on the fact that the appellants as such had
obtained higher marks in the screening test, whereas the private respondent
Nos.3 & 4 had less marks in the preliminary examination. However, since the
said respondents were belonging to reserved category, they had been given the
benefit of clearing the screening test at a lower threshold. In the main
examination, however, they had secured more marks and then allocated HCS
(Executive) Service and in such circumstances challenge had been raised.
3. The learned Single Judge had relied upon judgments of two
Division Benches passed in CWP-3144-2019 'Naveen Rao Vs. State of
Haryana and others' and CWP-3093-2022 'Ajit Singh Vs. State of
Haryana and others'that the preliminary examination round for the HCS
examination is merely a short-listing process and the marks obtained in the
same could not taken into consideration. The fact that another candidate had
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064886-DB
LPA-1347 & 1924-2023 (O&M)
made the representation and in view of the said representation the Chief
Secretary had issued directions, permission to changethe category was rejected
on the ground that it could not have precedence over the law what has been
held by this Court. Even otherwise we are of the considered opinion that if
there is any wrongful reference, it would not give any legal or vested right as it
is settled principle that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not operate
in the negative and if a wrong benefit is given, it cannot enure to others to
claim the same, as the Writ Court will not perpetuate the illegalities. Reliance
can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in R.
Muthukumar & others Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director
TANGEDCO and others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 140.
4. The terms of the advertisement in question (Annexure P-1) are
crystal clear, whereby the scheme of examination is laid out. The preliminary
examination was of objective type/multiple choice for screening only and the
main examination was conducted in the form of conventional/essay type. As
per the condition, 15 times the number of advertised posts in the preliminary
examination were to be admitted to the main examination and those who
qualified for the main examination would have to apply again, for which they
were informed separately. Three times the candidates in the order of merit of
main examination were called for personal test/viva voce, as per Note-4.
Thus, apparently, the sole consideration was the merit in the main examination
as per the terms of the advertisement itself. Relevant terms and conditions of
the advertisement read as under:-
"4. SCHEME OF EXAMINATION: The examination will
be Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) comprising of
the following stages;
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064886-DB
LPA-1347 & 1924-2023 (O&M)
(i) Preliminary Examination (Objective Type/Multiple
Choice) for screening only
(ii) Main Examination (Conventional/Essay Type)
(iii) Personality Test (Viva-voce)
Note 1: Candidates fifteen times the number of
advertised posts including bracketed candidates, if any, in
their respective categories in order of merit of the Preliminary
Examination will be admitted to the Main Examination.
Note 2: The question paper will be got printed bilingual
i.e. Hindi (being regional language) & English except
language paper;
Note 3: Candidates who qualify for the Main
Examination will have to apply again for which they will be
informed separately.
Note 4: Candidates thrice the number of advertised posts
including bracketed candidates, if any, in their respective
categories in order of merit of Main Examination will be
called for Personally Test (Viva-Voce)."
5. The appellants having sat in the said examination were well
aware about the terms of the examination. Having been selected but lower in
the merit they have been pushed out by the reserved category candidates and
they now chose to challenge the merit list on this ground being well aware of
the terms of the advertisement which are binding on them. The law is settled
in this regard once the candidates have gone through the selection process,
cannot then question the same, having accepted the terms and conditions of the
advertisement. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and
others, (1995) 3 SCC 486; K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and others
(2009) 5 SCC 515; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and others,
(2010) 12 SCC 576; Madras Institute of Development Studies and another
Vs. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 and Ashok Kumar
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064886-DB
LPA-1347 & 1924-2023 (O&M)
and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2017) 4 SCC 357. The learned
Single Judge was, thus, also bound by the law which has already been laid
down by the Division Benches, to which necessary reference has been made.
The preliminary test is only a screening test to assess the candidates at the
initial level and to reduce the number. The argument that the benefit of
reservation has been taken twice is not liable to be accepted, since in as much
as it was only on sheer merit having secured more marks the reserved
candidates have come in the general category and pushed out the appellants.
As per the terms of the advertisement itself, the merit is to be counted on the
basis of the marks obtained in the main examination.
6. Resultantly, we do not find any valid reason to interfere in the
order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the present letters patent
appealsare hereby dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
09.05.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
5 of 5
