Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 21 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137119
CWP-28262-2024 1
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-28262-2024
Date of Decision:21.10.2024
PARDEEP SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of
communication dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-9) and order dated
18.03.2018 (Annexure P-12) whereby respondent has rejected his claim
for the post of Constable.
2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 31.05.2016
(Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Constable. He was selected,
however, during verification of documents, it was found that his date of
birth recorded in matriculation certificate is 10.02.1998 whereas he has
disclosed in other documents as 10.02.1997.
3. On being pointed out aforesaid fact by authorities, the
petitioner approached Punjab School Education Board (for short 'Board')
to carry out necessary correction in the certificate. The Board corrected
certificate in 2018. He approached authorities seeking appointment,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137119
however, respondent vide order dated 18.03.2018 (Annexure P-12)
rejected his claim on the ground that as per matriculation certificate, he
was less than 18 years on 01.01.2016.
4. The aforesaid selection invited a glut of litigation. A number
of candidates approached this Court pointing out one or another
deficiency. The matter was finally settled by judgment dated 05.07.2021
passed in CWP No.22985 of 2016. The said petition was disposed of with
following directions:
"39. To sum up in the end, hereinbelow are the succinct
conclusions drawn and directions of the Court in the instant
judgment:-
i). The criteria of selection as per the original
advertisement read with the standing order, is upheld
and the petitioners' challenge thereto is rejected.
Dispensing with the interviews for the post of
Constable being Group-C which is in tune with the
guidelines issued by the Government of India and the
policy decision of the State Government dispensing
with the interview is also upheld. ii). The grievance of
the petitioners qua measurement of height would be
mitigated by the State by carrying out one time re-
measurement of their height in terms of judgment
rendered by this Court in Sonu Singh's case, ibid. It
is so ordered accordingly.
iii) All the petitioners be notified of the date, time and
venue for remeasurement of height through email/ text
message as well on the website of the department.
Those who opt for remeasurement, the exercise for
their remeaurement of height and the resultant
changes concerning the concerned petitioners in
selection shall be completed within the next one
month.
iv) If any of the concerned aggrieved petitioners
is/are selected, he/they be issued letters of
appointment within the next two months. Candidates
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137119
who have already undergone remeasurement test
during pendency of proceedings would be given
benefit thereof, if any, in accordance with remeasured
height.
v). If upon re-measurement of height, any petitioner
comes above the previously selected candidate in the
respective category viz. General or otherwise, in that
event the already selected candidate on the bottom of
list in the said category shall have to make way for
him, in case there is no vacancy available. Needless
to say that in case vacancies still exists, then the
newly selected candidate shall be accommodated in
accordance with his merit.
vi) A writ of mandamus is issued to the State of
Punjab that henceforth it shall ensure that the
guidelines, contained in Sonu Singh's case, ibid are
made mandatory in every recruitment to be carried
out in Punjab Police and other departments where
height is one of the criteria for selection.
vii) All other cases wherein additional issues, other
than the challenge to criteria as per advertisement
read with standing order and measurement of height,
are being detagged vide a separate order to be
reheard on their individual merits, only to the extent
the issues raised therein have not been dealt with in
this judgment."
5. The aforesaid judgment of Single Judge came to be
challenged before this Court by way of Intra Court Appeal. LPA No.961
of 2021 came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 16.05.2022. The order dated 16.05.2022 passed by Division
Bench reads as:
"Regarding the grouse of some of the candidates who had
been initially declared successful but on account of the
directions of remeasurement being passed vide interim
orders, have now been moved out of the zone of
consideration. The relief is not liable to be granted to them
since on the very first date i.e. 06.12.2016, the order had
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137119
been passed that selection and appointment of Constables
shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. The said
order reads as under:
"Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab has put in
appearance on behalf of the respondents/State and
prays for time to file reply. Service is complete.
Adjourned to 22.03.2017. In the meanwhile, the
selection and appointment of the Constables against
advertised posts vide Advt. No. 01/2016, dated
31.05.2016, shall be subject to the decision of the writ
petition."
Thus, for the said persons who are appointed were
well aware of the pendency of the writ petition and
now cannot turn around and say that they were not
heard at the time of the writ petition. The writ
petitions remained pending before the learned Single
Judge and various interim orders were passed and
eventually it was only decided on 05.07.2021 and they
had ample opportunity to join the proceedings but
chose not to do so. Thus they cannot now turn around
and say that any order has been passed on their
back."
6. The respondent-State challenged aforesaid order of Division
Bench before Supreme Court by way of SLP No.27011 of 2022 which
stands dismissed. The respondent prepared final merit list on 18.05.2022.
At the time of preparation of said list, objections were invited from
aggrieved candidates. The petitioner was never aggrieved from selection
process because he had already been selected, thus, there was no reason
for him to participate in the litigation pending before this Court.
7. Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate submits that there was no
lapse on his part. It was a mistake on the part of Board and he succeeded
in getting it corrected in 2018. The respondent without considering
correction slip issued by Board passed impugned order in 2018. The
order dated 14.03.2024 passed by respondent is also bad in the eye of
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137119
law. The respondent has wrongly rejected claim of the petitioner.
8. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab who on advance notice is
present in Court, submits that petitioner was duty bound to submit correct
documents especially matriculation certificate which was disclosing his
date of birth. As per matriculation certificate, he was less than 18 years
on 01.01.2016, thus, he could not be considered for the post of Constable.
The recruitment agency cannot wait for correction of documents. He was
supposed to get his documents corrected prior to filing of application or
at-least prior to scrutiny of documents.
9. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for both sides and
perused the record with their able assistance.
10. From the perusal of record, it comes out that petitioner was
selected in 2016 and he was assigned District Pathankot. On scrutiny of
documents, it was found that as per matriculation certificate, he was not
18 years old on 01.01.2016 i.e. cut off date prescribed in the
advertisement. There was mistake in the matriculation certificate. The
petitioner filled up correct date of birth in the application form, however,
he did not check date of birth disclosed in the matriculation certificate.
He was duty bound to get his date of birth corrected at-least before
scrutiny of documents. He succeeded in getting his date of birth corrected
in 2018 and thereafter requested respondent to permit him to join. There
is letter Annexure P-4 on record disclosing that petitioner requested
respondent to permit him to join but no date on the said letter is jotted
down. The respondent prepared final merit list in 2022. The said list was
prepared pursuant to judgment dated 05.07.2021 passed by this Court.
The petitioner had no concern with the litigation because he had already
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137119
been selected, thus, there was no reason for him to wait till 2022.
Litigation of other unsuccessful candidates did not detain him from
approaching authorities. He was not supposed to wait for the outcome of
others. As soon as, he obtained correction slip from Board, he was
supposed to avail remedies as permissible by law. His claim was rejected
in 2018 and he remained silent for more than 5 years and woke up from
slumber in 2024 and filed CWP No.713 of 2024 before this Court
which was disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider his
claim. The respondent by impugned communication dated 14.03.2024
has clarified that claim of the petitioner was rejected on 18.03.2018 and
he did not avail any remedy against said order. It is a case of
Government job which is scarce in India. It is highly improbable to
believe that petitioner was keenly following authorities for his cause. It
appears that due to reasons known to him, he opted to remain silent from
2018 to 2024 and at this belated stage is attempting rekindle a dead claim.
11. Dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
21.10.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
