Karampal Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 18716 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Karampal Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 October, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619




298         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                                  CWP-23789
                                        23789-2016 (O&M)
                                  Date of Decision : 22
                                                     22-10-2024

KARAMPAL KAUR                                             ........Petitioner

                                    VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS                                   ........Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI


Present:    Mr. H.C Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Ms. Shruti, AAG Punjab.

            ***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the

petitioner is that though the petitioner was fully eligible to compete for the

post of Punjabi Master in General (Sports) Category keeping in view the

Advertisement dated 20.11.2015(Annexure 20.11.2015(Annexure P P-1) but, the petitioner has not

been granted the benefit of appointment despite the fact that the candidate candida

lower in merit have already been granted the appointment in the General

(Sports) Category.

Category

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the only reason

given by the respondents to deny the petitioner the benefit of appointment

that the petitioner has has passed Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test with 87

marks in the Backward Category hence, the petitioner cannot be appointed

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619

CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -2-

against the said post reserved for the General Category Sports Person which

has to be filled from the General Category as 90 marks were required for a

General Category candidate to pass the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility

Test, which the petitioner does not have.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground being

taken to deny the appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3545-3549 of 2015

titled "Vikas Sankhala and ors. Vs. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal and ors.",

decided on 18.10.2016, wherein it has already been held that once a

candidate might have passed the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in the

reserved category, the said candidate can be considered in the General

Category as well without raising objection that the marks secured by the

candidate in the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test is less than the one

required to clear the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in General

Category.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State still adhered to

their stand that unless and until the petitioner cleared the Punjab State

Teacher Eligibility Test with 90 marks, the petitioner cannot be considered

against any post, which has to be filled by a General Category candidate

whereas in the present petition, the petitioner has secured 87marks by which

the petitioner cleared the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in the

Backward Category thereby considering her not eligible.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

The question has been posed before this Court is whether a

candidate who has cleared the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619

CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -3-

Reserved Category can be considered in the General Category or not even if,

a candidate has secured lesser marks in the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility

Test as compared to the minimum marks required for clearing the Punjab

State Teacher Eligibility Test in the General Category. The said question of

law, has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Vikas Sankhala's case (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is

as under:-

"62. In Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2010(3) S.C.T. 826: (2010) 3 SCC 119, this Court has very categorically held that relaxations given in educational qualifications etc. making a person eligible to participate in selection process would not be treated as availing benefits in the recruitment/employment and the benefits envisaged have 10 be those which have direct relation to recruitment/employment and are relatable to the jovial relationship of employer and employee. It is also clarified that such benefits must occur from and should be post level playing field. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from the said judgment touching upon the aforesaid aspects:

"48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list.

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619

CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -4-

49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to be determined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates.

75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfil the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition."

It is stated at the cost of repetition that provision of giving 20% marks of TET score was applied to all candidates irrespective of the category to which he/she belongs and, therefore, no concession or

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619

CWP-23789-2016 (O&M) -5-

relaxation or advantage or benefit was given in this behalf which could disturb the level playing field and tilt advantage in respect of reserved category candidate. On the contrary, the reserved category candidates who had secured less marks in TET examination are given lesser marks in the recruitment process on the application of the formula of allocating 20% marks of TET score. Question No. 3 is answered accordingly."

Learned State counsel submits that as per the order passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3609 of 2017 titled

"Deepa E.V Vs. Union of India and ors.", decided on 06.04.2017, the Bar

exists for considering the Reserved Category Employees who have claimed

relaxation to compete in the General Category.

It may be noticed that the said judgment in Deepa E.V's case

(supra) has been given on the basis of the instructions where existed in the

said case imposing an express bar for the candidate belonging to the

reserved category claiming consideration in the General Category by the

grant of relaxation. But no such Bar has been brought to the notice of this

Court in the present case so that the petitioner cannot compete for the post in

General Category after clearing the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test in

the Reserved Category of Backward Class. Rather, the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Jitender Kumar Singh and ors. Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh" 2010, Vol.3 SCC 1990, covers the field in favour

of the petitioner so as to make her eligible for the post in question.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that all

the posts, in the Sports Category (General) which could not be filled were

not transferred to General Category and have been filled up.

                                5 of 6

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138619


CWP-23789-2016 (O&M)                                    -6-

The denying of the appointment to the petitioner despite the

settled principle of law in her favour, is an illegal act of the respondents and

merely that the posts have been filled up, will not come against the petitioner

especially when the petitioner has filed the present petition immediately

after the selection process is over.

Let, the petitioner be considered in the Sports Category

(General) in accordance with her merit and in case any candidate lower in

merit than the petitioner has been appointed on the post in question in the

Category in which the petitioner is competing, the petitioner be granted the

benefit of appointment in the cadre of Master even if, a supernumerary post

is to be created so that candidate who have already been appointed, are not

disturbed in any manner.

The petitioner will be given appointment w.e.f. the date

candidates lower in merit have been granted but, the petitioner will not be

given any financial benefit and till the actual appointment of the petitioner,

which should be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt

of copy of this order.

Present petition is allowed in above-stated terms.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

22-10-2024                                   (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Sapna Goyal
                                                     JUDGE


        NOTE:        Whether speaking: YES/NO
                     Whether reportable: YES/NO




                                 6 of 6