Suman vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 18850 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Suman vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 October, 2024

                 CWP-24344-2024                                                                          -1-

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                   AT CHANDIGARH


                 118                                                     CWP-24344-2024
                                                                         Date of Decision: 24.10.2024

                 Suman                                                                    ...Petitioner(s)


                                                               Versus


                 State of Haryana and others                                            ...Respondent(s)


                 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

                 Present:-              Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate, and
                                        Ms. Nirmala, Advocate for the petitioner

                                        Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana

                 TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari

quashing the order dated 23.06.2023, Annexure P-23, whereby the petitioner's

representation against having been declared ineligible has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner applied for the post

of Craft Instructor (Women) Cutting and Sewing (Theory), category 46, under

BC-B category in response to advertisement 12 of 2019, Annexure P-16. The

posts earlier advertised in 2017 and withdrawn had also been re-advertised vide

this advertisement, and the candidates who had earlier applied against these

posts were considered eligible against the re-advertised posts as well after

giving age relaxation, if required; also, such candidates were exempted from

payment of application fee. Based on the stipulation, learned counsel contends

that the qualifications which were notified for these posts in 2017, should be

authenticity of this order/judgment

made applicable for the instant selection as well. Since the petitioner fulfilled

those qualifications, her candidature could not have been rejected for want of

eligibility.

3. Heard

4. A perusal of the impugned order, dated 23.06.2023, shows that the

petitioner was not having the requisite degree/diploma from an institution

recognized by the National Council for Vocational Education and Training

(NCVET) as required in terms of the advertisement and was, accordingly,

considered ineligible. The fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the

petitioner as well. His contention that the petitioner is to be considered eligible

on the basis of qualifications earlier notified for these posts in 2017 is without

substance, since the advertisement in question, 12 of 2019, specifically laid

down the qualifications inviting applications for the posts in question. And the

petitioner knowingly participated in the selection process without raising any

grievance against it. After remaining unsuccessful, at this stage, she cannot be

allowed to turn around and challenge those qualifications.

5. In view thereof, no ground to entertain the petition is made out,

and it stands dismissed.

                                                                           (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
                                                                                  JUDGE
                 24.10.2024
                 Payal
                                        Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                                        Whether reportable                Yes/No




authenticity of this order/judgment