Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 September, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
CWP-14505-2022 -1-
234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14505-2022
Date of decision: 03.09.2024
SUMIT
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the impugned action of the respondents for considering the
petitioner in General Category as per list of details of the marks of candidates,
who participated in the scrutiny of documents (Annexure P-17) instead of
considering him in General-DESM Category for selection to the post of ALM
with a further prayer to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner for selection to the post of ALM under General-DESM Category and
place the petitioner at appropriate place in selection list/revised result dated
06.07.2022 (Annexure P-13) in the General-DESM Category as he had secured
1 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
more marks than the last selected candidate and also to recommend the name of
the petitioner for appointment to the post of ALM to the concerned department.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner applied for
the post of Assistant Lineman (ALM) in pursuance of advertisement
No.11/2019 dated 05.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) and the closing date for the
purpose of submission of online application forms was initially 25.07.2019 but
later on the same was extended till 03.02.2020. As per the selection criteria,
written test was conducted on 14.11.2021 and vide Annexure P-9, result of the
same was declared on 18.12.2021, in which the petitioner was declared as a
successful candidate. As per Clause 2.4 (Note No.4) of the aforesaid
advertisement, it has been mentioned that if a candidate of Ex-Servicemen is
not available then dependents of Ex-Servicemen are to be considered and in
case dependents of Ex-Servicemen are not available then dependents of
Freedom Fighters are to be considered. The petitioner is stated to be the
dependent of Ex-Serviceman and he had applied under the aforesaid category.
3. In the aforesaid advertisement, reservation was provided for
different posts. The petitioner applied in category No.21 i.e. for the post of
Assistant Lineman (ALM) and the following was the break-up of the posts and
reservation, which is reproduced as under:-
Break-up of the posts:-
Category Total NonESM/ESP ESM ESP
2 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
EWS 130 130 - -
Total 1307
PwD - Deaf and hard - -
(Person of hearing
Disabilities)
Bifurcation HH/PD-52
of PwD
4. The application form of the petitioner is Annexure P-4, wherein
against the column of Reservation : Dependent of Ex-Servicemen, the petitioner
has mentioned 'Yes' and in this way, the petitioner applied under the category of
Dependent of Ex-Servicemen. At the end of the aforesaid application form,
various documents were required to be attached in which the petitioner has
stated at serial No.1 that he has attached Dependent of Ex-Serviceman
Certificate. The said Dependent of Ex-Serviceman Certificate which was so
attached by the petitioner along with the application form is also attached with
the present writ petition as Annexure P-3, which has the heading of
"Relationship Certificate in respect of No.1078658H Rank Ex-DFR Name
Dalbir Singh of 8 CAV (Unit)" and the same has been issued by the Record
Officer of the Indian Army. In this way, admittedly the petitioner applied under
the category of Dependent of Ex-Servicemen as per the aforesaid application
form itself along with the aforesaid Relationship Certificate (Annexure P-3).
Thereafter, the process started and the petitioner appeared in the written
examination, which he cleared. After the petitioner cleared the written
examination, he along with other candidates was called for scrutiny of
documents on different dates and the schedule of scrutiny of documents is
3 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
attached as Annexure P-11, wherein qua the roll number of the petitioner, the
date fixed was 05.02.2022 and in this way, the petitioner was to appear for
scrutiny of documents before the Scrutiny Committee on the aforesaid date. The
result of the petitioner by which he cleared the written examination and was
called for scrutiny of documents has been attached as Annexure P-9, wherein
the aforesaid schedule is also mentioned and the candidates were directed to
bring all the original documents along with them at the time of scrutiny of
documents and it was also stated that if a candidate does not appear for scrutiny
of documents, then no further opportunity will be given thereafter.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner appeared for scrutiny of documents for
the date already fixed qua him i.e. 05.02.2022 and there is no dispute with
regard to the same. However, when the petitioner appeared for scrutiny of
documents, the document of Dependent of Ex-Serviceman which he had
attached as Annexure P-3 was not accepted by the Scrutiny Committee because
the same was not in consonance with the advertisement, even though the
petitioner applied under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category, as per his
own application form as stated above. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the
Eligibility Certificate issued by the District Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare
Officer, Sonipat dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-12) before the Scrutiny
Committee of the respondent-Commission on the very next day i.e. 11.02.2022
vide diary No.1649, as per his averment made in para No.6 of the present writ
petition. In the aforesaid para No.6, the petitioner has specifically averred that
at the time when he appeared for scrutiny of documents on 05.02.2022, his
documents were found to be in order by the Scrutiny Committee but an
4 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
objection was raised on the basis of aforesaid Relationship Certificate
(Annexure P-3) to the extent that the same could not have been considered to be
under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category as per the advertisement and
he was asked by the officials of the respondent-Haryana Staff Selection
Commission to submit the Dependent of Ex-Serviceman Certificate issued by
the Zila Sainik Board to get the benefit of reservation under Dependent of
Ex-Servicemen category and therefore, the petitioner approached the District
Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonipat for issuance of eligibility
certificate and on his request, the District Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare
Officer, Sonipat issued the certificate on 10.02.2022 to him vide Annexure
P-12, which was submitted by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee of
the respondent-Commission on 11.02.2022 vide diary No.1649.
6. However, when the final result was declared vide Annexure P-13,
the petitioner was not considered under the category of Dependent of
Ex-Servicemen because of the aforesaid deficiency of the dependent certificate
which he did not attach along with the application form and without considering
the aforesaid certificate dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-12), he was considered
under the General Category, due to which he could not obtain the requisite
merit and therefore, he was not selected for the aforesaid post of ALM. The last
selected candidate under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category secured 26
marks, whereas the petitioner secured 30 marks. The petitioner secured 30
marks, although considered under the General Category, was not selected
because his merit was much below than that of the last selected candidate under
the General Category but he was higher in merit under the Dependent of
5 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
Ex-Servicemen category but he was not considered under the Dependent of
Ex-Servicemen category because of want of the aforesaid certificate which the
petitioner did not submit at the time of scrutiny of documents but submitted
after about 5-6 days vide Annexure P-12.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where
as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, various notes have been
provided under Clause 2.4 and he referred to Note No.15 of the aforesaid
Clause, which is reproduced as under:-
"15. DESM candidates of Haryana claiming benefit
must have valid eligibility certificate on last date of
submission of online application form and will have to
produce the valid Eligibility Certificate from the concerned
Zila Sainik Board when called upon to do so by Haryana
Staff Selection Commission. Mere dependent certificate will
not be entertained. ESM candidates should also produce
attested photo copy of Identity Card issued by concerned
Zila Sainik Board & Discharge Book whenever required."
8. While referring to the aforesaid Note No.15, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that it has been so stated therein that the Dependent of
Ex-Servicemen candidates of Haryana claiming benefit must have valid
eligibility certificate on the last date of submission of online application form
and they will have to produce the valid Eligibility Certificate from the
concerned Zila Sainik Board when called upon to do so by Haryana Staff
Selection Commission and mere dependent certificate will not be entertained.
He further submitted that in this way although the petitioner has not attached
6 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
the dependent certificate along with the application form and he only attached
the relationship certificate (Annexure P-3) along with the application form but
when the result of the written examination was declared vide Annexure P-9,
then as per the note attached with the result, it was so directed by the Haryana
Staff Selection Commission that the scrutiny of documents of the candidates
will be held from 01.02.2022 to 07.02.2022 and the candidates were directed to
bring all the original documents, set of self-attested copies of all documents,
one ID proof and copy of the downloaded application form. It was also stated
that in case a candidate does not appear for scrutiny of documents then no
further opportunity will be granted thereafter.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in pursuance
of the aforesaid Note No.15 for calling for scrutiny of documents and for
bringing of all the documents, the petitioner appeared on 05.02.2022 before the
Scrutiny Committee, which was the date scheduled for scrutiny of his
documents and he produced all the documents before the Scrutiny Committee
but so far as the document pertaining to Dependent of Ex-Serviceman is
concerned, he produced the relationship certificate (Annexure P-3), which
according to the Scrutiny Committee was not a valid document as per the
advertisement and he was asked by the officials of the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission to bring a proper valid document in this regard and immediately
the petitioner applied for the aforesaid document and he got the eligibility
certificate after 5 days i.e. on 10.02.2022 as issued by the District Sainik and
Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonipat vide Annexure P-12 and on the very next
day i.e. on 11.02.2022, he submitted the same before the Scrutiny Committee.
7 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
He further submitted that once the petitioner submitted the aforesaid certificate
before the Scrutiny Committee then the Scrutiny Committee was bound to
consider the aforesaid certificate because the process was still going on and it is
not a case that the Scrutiny Committee had finished the job and further process
for final selection was required to be carried on but the process of scrutiny of
documents carried on till 11.03.2022. He further submitted that in this regard,
rather a public notice dated 08.03.2022 was also issued by the Haryana Staff
Selection Commission, which is reproduced as under:-
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
Bays no. 67-70, sec-2, Panchkula-134151
(Website: www.hssc.gov.in)
SCRUTINY OF DOCUMENTS
Notice to the absentee candidates for Scrutiny of documents
for the post Assistant Lineman of UHBVNL, Haryana against
Advt. No. 11/2019, Cat No. 21.
In continuation of Notice dated 18.12.2021 and 06.02.2022,
vide which the Candidates were called for Scrutiny of Documents
from 01.02.2022 to 07.02.2022 and absentee candidate were called
for D.V on 09.02.2022 for the post of Assistant Lineman of
UHBVNL, Haryana Against Advt. No. 11/2019, Cat No. 21. The
Commission has now decided to give last opportunity on
11.03.2022 to candidates who remained absent for Scrutiny of
Documents.
2. The candidate with directions of Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court, if any, may also come for Scrutiny of
Documents on 11.03.2022 in the Commission office for document
verification in respect of above said posts alongwith the direction
of Hon'ble High Court.
3. The candidates are advised to report at 09.00 A.M. in the
Commission office, Panchkula. They are also directed to bring all
8 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
original documents, set of self attested copies of all documents, one
ID Proof and copy of downloaded application form.
4. The Notice is also available on Commission's Website i.e.
www.hssc.gov.in.
Note: -
1. Other terms and conditions are same as mentioned in earlier
Notices.
2. No further chance will be given thereafter.
Sd/-
Secretary
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
Panchkula, Panchkula
Dated: 8th March, 2022
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the
aforesaid public notice, opportunity was granted to those candidates who were
rather absent on the date when they were called for scrutiny of documents and
the process carried on till 11.03.2022 and in this way, notwithstanding the fact
that in Note No.2 attached with the result of written examination (Annexure
P-9) as aforesaid, it was so stated by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission
that in case a candidate does not appear for scrutiny of documents then no
further opportunity will be granted thereafter, but still further opportunity was
granted to those candidates who were absent but so far as the present petitioner
is concerned, he was not even absent and admittedly he was present on the date
which was originally scheduled qua him i.e. 05.02.2022 for scrutiny of
documents, but the document which was required by the respondent-
Commission in a proper format was not with the petitioner and on the advise of
the officials of the respondent-Commission, he immediately applied for the
9 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
same before the District Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonipat and
Dependent of Ex-Serviceman certificate was issued to him on 10.02.2022
(Annexure P-12) and he submitted the same before the Scrutiny Committee of
the respondent-Commission on 11.02.2022 and even the last date for scrutiny of
documents was 11.03.2022 and in this way, at the time when the petitioner
submitted the aforesaid certificate before the Scrutiny Committee, scrutiny of
documents was still going on.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner has made specific averments with regard to the aforesaid position in
para No.6 of the writ petition that while he appeared for scrutiny of documents
he was asked by the officials of the respondent-Commission to submit a proper
document, to which he applied for the same and submitted on 11.02.2022 vide
diary No.1649 and the same is not denied by the respondent-Commission when
the respondent-Commission filed its reply. He further submitted that in other
words, in the absence of any denial of the specific averments made by the
petitioner in this regard, the same are deemed to have been admitted by the
respondent-Commission and therefore, once the petitioner submitted the
aforesaid certificate on 11.02.2022 vide diary No.1649 on the asking of the
Commission, then it was obligatory upon the respondent-Commission to have
considered the same in accordance with law but the inaction of the respondent-
Commission has affected the career of the petitioner because he was never
considered under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category. He further
submitted that had he been considered under the category of Dependent of
Ex-Servicemen then he would have been selected on his own merits to the post
10 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
of Assistant Lineman because he secured total 30 marks, whereas the last
selected candidate under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category had secured
26 marks.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment passed by
this Court in CWP-1808-2022, titled as Anil Kumar versus State of Haryana
and others, decided on 01.05.2024 to contend that in similar circumstances, this
Court while referring to various other judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court and High Courts allowed the writ petition even if the Dependent of
Freedom Fighter certificate was not attached along with the application form
but was issued at the time of scrutiny of documents and therefore, so far as the
case of the present petitioner is concerned, the same would also be squarely
covered by the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court. He further submitted
that the advertisement which was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ
petition i.e. Anil Kumar's case (supra) and the present writ petition is the same
and therefore, all the conditions of the advertisement of the aforesaid writ
petition i.e. Anil Kumar's case (supra) and the present writ petition are also
same and therefore, necessary direction be issued to the respondent-
Commission to consider and forward the case of the petitioner by considering
him under Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category to the concerned department
i.e. respondent No.2 for further appointment. He further submitted that when
notice of motion was issued by this Court on 11.07.2022, it was also directed
that one post in the DESM-General category, if not already filled, be kept
vacant. He also submitted that now when reply has been filed by the
11 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
respondents, it has been stated therein that one post under the DESM-General
category has been kept vacant and the same is still lying vacant.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED STATE COUNSEL
13. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission submitted that the petitioner
did not attach any document pertaining to Dependent of Ex-Serviceman along
with the application form and as per the advertisement, at the time when
application form was to be filled then documents were to be attached along with
the application form and at the most the documents could be produced at the
time of scrutiny of documents but the petitioner admittedly has not supplied the
certificate of Dependent of Ex-Serviceman even at the time of scrutiny of
documents i.e. on 05.02.2022 and after about 5-6 days the same was supplied,
which therefore could not have been considered because scrutiny of documents
qua him was over by the time he supplied the aforesaid document. He referred
to Note No.15 of Clause 2.4 of the advertisement to contend that at the most at
the time of scrutiny of documents, the eligibility certificate could have been
supplied and in the absence of the same, the respondent-Commission was well
within its rights to have not considered the petitioner under the Dependent of
Ex-Servicemen category.
14. Learned State counsel also submitted that so far as the reliance
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment passed by this
Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable
on facts in view of the fact that in that case although the certificate of
Dependent of Freedom Fighter was not attached along with the application form
12 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
but the same was submitted by the petitioner of that case at the time of scrutiny
of documents and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court
had allowed the writ petition because at least at the time of scrutiny of
documents, the petitioner of that case had submitted the document but in the
present case, the petitioner did not supply any such certificate of Dependent of
Ex-Serviceman at the time of scrutiny of documents but as per the averments
made by the petitioner in para No.6 of the writ petition, he supplied the
eligibility certificate on 11.02.2022 vide diary No.1649, which was issued to
him by the District Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonipat on
10.02.2022 vide Annexure P-12 and therefore, it cannot be said that the case of
the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in
Anil Kumar's case (supra).
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Nigam submitted that so far
as the vacancy position in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on
11.07.2022 is concerned, one post has already been kept vacant under DESM-
General category and the same is also in existence as of today. He further
submitted that the respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission is a
recommendatory body and whichever candidate is recommended by the
respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission, the same is considered in
accordance with law for the purpose of appointment.
ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS
16. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
13 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
17. It is a case where the dispute is with regard to the eligibility
certificate (Annexure P-12), which is a certificate of Dependent of
Ex-Serviceman issued by the District Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer,
Sonipat to the petitioner on 10.02.2022, which is after the cut-off date for filling
up of the application form and after the scrutiny of documents qua the petitioner
held on 05.02.2022.
18. Before proceeding further, the averments which have been made by
the petitioner in para No.6 of the present writ petition are required to be
considered and therefore, para No.6 of the present writ petition is reproduced as
under:-
"6. That it is submitted here that the respondent
commission had issued the notice to the candidates for
inviting objections on answer key for the various posts of
ALM against the advt No. 11/2019 category no.21 of
UHBVNL. A copy of the said notice dated 16.11.2021 is
enclosed herewith as annexure P/8. The petitioner has not
filed any objections against the answer key. Finally, the
result of the written examination for the post of ALM was
declared on dated 28.12.2021 by the respondent commission
without properly deciding the objections of the petitioner.
The roll number of the petitioner was figured in the said list
of successful candidates in the written test, therefore, he had
cleared the written test. A copy of the Result dated
28.12.2021 is enclosed herewith as annexure P/9. It is
submitted here that as per the said notice dated 28.12.2021,
the candidates are required to appear for the document
verification from 07.01.2022 onwards. However, the
respondent commission had issued the notice to the
candidates for online scrutiny for documents for ALM from
14 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
25.1.2022 to 28.1.2022. A copy of the said notice is enclosed
herewith as annexure P/10. The petitioner has duly uploaded
the documents in the prescribed format. The respondent
commission had issued the schedule for the scrutiny of
documents to be held from 1.2.2022 to 7.2.2022. The copies
of the scheduled for scrutiny of the documents is enclosed
herewith as annexure P/11. Accordingly, the petitioner had
participated in the scrutiny of documents from dated
5.2.2022 and his documents were found in order and there
was no deficiency of any kind and he was fully found fit and
eligible for the post of ALM. However, they have raised the
objection that on the basis of Relationship certificate the
petitioner could not considered under the DESM category,
therefore, he was asked by the officials of the respondent
commission to submit the DESM certificate issued by the
Zila Sainik Board to get the benefit of reservation under
DESM category. Therefore, the petitioner approached the
Distt. Sainik and Ardh Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonipat to
issue the DESM eligibility certificate and on the said
request of the petitioner, the Distt. Sainik and Ardh Sainik
Welfare Officer, Sonipat has issued the DESM eligibility
certificate dated 10.2.2022 is enclosed herewith as
annexure P/12. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted the
said certificate in the respondent commission on dated
11.2.2022 vide diary no. 1649 maintained by the respondent
commission."
(emphasis supplied)
19. A perusal of the aforesaid would show that the petitioner has
specifically averred in para No.6 of the present writ petition that the petitioner
participated in the scrutiny of documents on 05.02.2022 and his documents
were found to be in order. However, an objection was raised by the Scrutiny
15 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
Committee of the respondent-Commission that the Relationship Certificate,
which the petitioner had attached along with the present writ petition as
Annexure P-3 could not be considered under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen
category and therefore, he was asked by the officials of the respondent-
Commission to submit the Dependent of Ex-Serviceman certificate issued by
the Zila Sainik Board to get the benefit of reservation under the Dependent of
Ex-Servicemen category and in this way, the petitioner immediately approached
the District Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonipat for issuance of
eligibility certificate, which was issued to him on 10.02.2022 vide Annexure
P-12 and he submitted the same before the Scrutiny Committee of the
respondent-Commission on 11.02.2022 vide diary No.1649 maintained by the
respondent-Commission. However, when reply was filed by the respondent-
Commission, there is no denial with regard to the aforesaid eligibility
certificate. The only stand taken up by the respondent-Commission in the
aforesaid reply and by the learned State counsel today is to the extent that the
Relationship Certificate (Annexure P-3) which was attached by the petitioner
along with the application form was not in a proper format and so far as the
eligibility certificate dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-12) is concerned, the same
was issued after the scrutiny of documents and therefore, the petitioner could
not have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee and he has no right for
being considered under the Dependent of Ex-Servicemen category.
20. The law with regard to the submission of documents submitted
after the cut-off date is no longer res integra and therefore, it will be just and
proper to analyse and discuss the law on the subject. In Ms. Pushpa versus
16 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
Government, NCT of Delhi and others, C.M. No.17504/2008 in W.P. (C)
No.9112/2008, the Delhi High Court dealt with the aforesaid proposition of law
and in that case, the petitioner applied for the post of Staff Nurse under the
OBC category and for that purpose, the last date for submission of application
form was 21.01.2018 and the certificate was not accepted, as no proof was
furnished by the petitioner of that case to satisfy the authorities that she belongs
to the said category since she did not attach the certificate because although she
had applied for the certificate to the SDM for grant of OBC certificate but it
was issued after the cut-off date and therefore, the aforesaid petition of
aforesaid Ms. Pushpa's case (supra) was allowed by the Delhi High Court on
the ground that the petitioner therein was not at fault.
21. In Dolly Chhanda versus Chairman JEE, 2005 (9) SCC 779,
Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the case of a girl, who was a daughter
of an Ex-Serviceman and was discharged from Armed Forces on the ground of
disability also discussed the aforesaid issue as to what is the effect of filing the
certificate after the cutoff date. In that case, during the course of scrutiny of
papers, it was revealed that the certificate pertained to "Disabled/killed in
war/hostilities" and therefore, was not found to be eligible, whereas, it ought to
have been under the ground of "Permanently Disabled" and thereafter, a fresh
certificate was obtained by the petitioner of that case and relief was granted to
her. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the principle of law observed
that it is a general rule that when a person applies for any post, he/she must
possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose, but
at the same time depending upon the facts and circumstances of each and every
17 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
case, there can also be relaxation in the manner of submission of proof and it
will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of
procedure and any infraction of any rule relating to the submission of the proof
need not necessarily result in rejection of the candidature. In other words, it
would mean that there can be no straightjacket formula for rejecting a
candidature only on the aforesaid reason. Paras No.7 and 9 of the aforesaid
judgment are reproduced as under:-
"7. The general rule is that while applying for any
course of study or a post, a person must possess the
eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such
purpose either in the admission brochure or in application
form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision
to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e.
in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification
by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the
necessary certificates, degrees or mark-sheets. Similarly, in
order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc.
necessary certificates have to be produced. These are
documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular
qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement
for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a
case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of
submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any
rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure.
Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof
need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI
category. She comes from a very humble background, her
father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have
18 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla
Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated
29.6.2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be
denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the
stage of second counselling. Those who secured rank lower
than the appellant have already been admitted. The view
taken by the authorities in denying admission to the
appellant is wholly unjust and illegal."
22. In Haryana Staff Selection Commission versus Subhash Chand
and others, LPA No.1199 of 2019, a similar subject matter came up for hearing
before a Division Bench of this Court in LPA, wherein the candidature was also
rejected on the ground that the condition was that the certificate should have
been issued prior to the last date of submission of online application form. The
matter was pertaining to seeking reservation in EBPGC category and the
certificate was to be issued by the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward
Classes Department, which was issued after the cut-off date. It was held by a
Division Bench of this Court that it is important to see that while eligibility i.e.
possessing education qualification should be possessed by the cut-off date for
claiming benefit of reservation, proof of eligibility to claim such reservation
need not to be submitted by the cut-off date. Even if proof of claim of eligibility
for reservation is produced beyond the cut-off date, the candidate can be
considered for the grant of the said benefit and cannot be denied relief. A
Division Bench of this Court in this regard also referred to judgments of
Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya versus Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board and another, 2016 (4) SCC 754 and Charles K. Skaria and
others versus Dr. C. Mathew and others, 1980 (2) SCC 752 and also referred to
19 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda's case
(supra). The relevant portion of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in LPA is reproduced as under:-
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
"Thus the important thing to be seen is that while
eligibility i.e possessing education qualification should be
possessed by the cut off date, for claiming benefit of
reservation, proof of eligibility to claim such reservation
need not be submitted by cut off date. Even if proof of claim
of eligibility for reservation is produced beyond cut off date,
the candidate can be considered for grant of the said benefit
and cannot be denied relief.
In Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra), the appellant
had sought appointment to the post of Staff Nurse under the
OBC category, but the said certificate was not submitted
with the application and submitted after the last date
mentioned in the advertisement. The appellant was therefore
not selected on that ground, but the Supreme Court held that
the candidature of those candidates, who belonged to
reserved categories, could not be rejected simply on account
of late submission of caste certificate. The Supreme Court
held that the purpose of certificate is to enable the
authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that
he belongs to a particular category and act thereon by
giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to the
said category. It was not as if the petitioners therein did not
belong to the reserved category prior to the cut off date or
that they acquire the status of belonging to the said category
only on the date of issuance of the certificate. It held that
necessitating upon a certificate to be issued prior to the cut
20 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
off date would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rational
objective sought to be achieved.
In Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew
and others, the Supreme Court held that the candidates who
got admission even though they had not attached the
certificate of having passed the diploma alongwith their
applications, could not have their admission to a Post
Graduate cancelled provided they had in fact passed the
diploma before the date fixed, but had submitted the diploma
with delay. It observed that the important question is
whether or not the candidate secured a diploma before the
final date of application for admission to the degree course
and if he did have the diploma some relaxation in producing
evidence of the diploma can be granted. It held that the
emphasis should be on the diploma and the proof thereof
subserves the factum of possession of diploma and is not an
independent factor. It held that what is essential is the
possession of the diploma before the given date and what is
ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To
make mandatory, the date of acquiring the qualification
before the last date for application make sense. But if it is
shown that the qualification has been acquired before the
relevant date, to invalidate the merit factor because proof
was adduced a few days later, would not be proper."
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
23. The aforesaid judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court
was later on assailed by the respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission by
filing a Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was
dismissed on 31.01.2024.
21 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
24. In Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
also dealt with this issue as to whether a candidate who appears in an
examination under the OBC category and submits the certificate after the last
date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under
the OBC category or not. It also referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court
in Ms. Pushpa's case (supra) and another judgment in Tej Pal Singh & others
versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, ILR 2001 Delhi 298. It was so held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the decision rendered in the case of Ms.Pushpa's case
(supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
25. After the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya's
case (supra), there was another matter which came up for hearing before
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karn Singh Yadav versus Government of
NCT, Delhi in SLP No.14948 of 2016 arising out of the aforesaid judgment
passed by Delhi High Court. The aforesaid matter came up before Bench of two
Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein reference was also made to
Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra) but Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred
the matter for consideration to a Larger Bench. The aforesaid three Judges
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case thereafter observed that
in an identical situation in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the concerned candidate and the present
case is thus completely covered by the aforesaid case.
26. The aforesaid order passed by three Judges Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 28.09.2022 is reproduced as under:-
22 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
"Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
07.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No.55 of 2013.
We are presently concerned with the process of
selection issued vide advertisement dated 30.08.2007 for the
posts of "A" Grade Staff Nurse, Municipal Corporation of
Delhi. The appellant had offered his candidature as a person
belonging to Other Backward Class. His candidature was,
however, rejected by the Authorities inter alia on the ground
that the documents certifying him to be belonging to that
community were not filed before the cut-off date.
The challenge raised by the appellant to such rejection
did not meet with any success and the High Court by the
order presently under challenge rejected the writ petition in
limine.
It must be stated here that an identical fact situation
came up for consideration before this Court in Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board &
Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754, wherein this Court ruled in
favour of the concerned candidate. The instant matter is thus
completely covered by said decision.
However, it must be noted here that as a result of
cancellation of the candidature, the appellant was never
appointed to the post in question and at this length in time, it
will not be possible to grant any substantial relief to the
appellant.
Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with no order as
to costs."
27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this
Court to the extension of date of scrutiny of documents. It is an admitted
23 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
position that vide Annexure P-11, a schedule was made with regard to different
candidates for fixing of date of scrutiny of documents for the post of Assistant
Lineman (ALM) and 05.02.2022 was the date assigned to the petitioner when
he admittedly appeared for scrutiny of documents. Since the relationship
certificate (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner was not in order, as per the averment
made by the petitioner in para No.6 of the present writ petition, which goes
unrebutted in the reply filed by the respondent-Commission, the petitioner on
the asking of Scrutiny Committee submitted another eligibility certificate before
the Scrutiny Committee on 11.02.2022, which was a valid certificate issued by
the District Sainik and Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonipat on 10.02.2022
(Annexure P-12). The process of scrutiny of documents was still going on till
11.03.2022. A plea has been taken by the learned State counsel that once the
petitioner appeared for scrutiny of documents then qua him the process was
over and therefore, on a subsequent date he could not have supplied any such
document. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that those
candidates who could not even appear before the Scrutiny Committee for the
scrutiny of documents and were absent on the assigned dates were granted
extension and this process continued till 11.03.2022 but so far as the present
petitioner is concerned, admittedly he was rather present on the date scheduled
qua him i.e. 05.02.2022 and he submitted the eligibility certificate (Annexure
P-12) on 11.02.2022 vide diary No.1649, which also goes unrebutted, which
was even much before the extended date i.e. 11.03.2022, then it was the duty of
the respondent-Commission to have considered his eligibility certificate for the
purpose of considering him under the category of Dependent of Ex-Servicemen.
24 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
28. I find force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that on the one hand, the respondent-Commission has granted the
benefit of extension of time for the purpose of scrutiny of documents to those
candidates who remained totally absent and on the other hand, it is taking a
stand that so far as the petitioner is concerned, although he appeared on the
aforesaid scheduled date but as he has given the aforesaid certificate (Annexure
P-12) after about 5-6 days, the same could not have been accepted. The
aforesaid contradictory stand taken by the respondent-Commission would not
be sustainable. The petitioner would be at much better footing as compared to
those who remained totally absent on the assigned date of scrutiny of
documents.
29. Furthermore, it has been so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
also by this Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) that the fact that the document
on which reservation is being claimed if not attached along with the application
form cannot be put in a straightjacket formula and it is only a domain of
procedure and any infraction of the same would not be automatically fatal. So
far as the aforesaid judgment of Anil Kumar's case (supra) is concerned, there
is a distinction in the factual position because in that case the document of
reservation was provided by the petitioner of that case at the time of scrutiny of
documents and therefore, this Court had allowed the writ petition. However, in
the present case the petitioner supplied the eligibility certificate (Annexure
P-12) on 11.02.2022 and during the process when scrutiny of documents was
still taking place, which continued till 11.03.2022. The extension of time was
granted even to the absentee candidates and therefore, on this ground that the
25 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
petitioner submitted the aforesaid eligibility certificate after about 5-6 days of
the scrutiny of documents i.e. on 11.02.2022 would not be fatal to the petitioner.
Above all, even when specific averments were made by the petitioner in para
No.6 of the present writ petition as reproduced above that he has supplied
eligibility certificate on 11.02.2022 vide diary No.1649, the same goes
unrebutted by the respondents and therefore, it can be safely inferred that the
petitioner supplied the valid document on 11.02.2022 before the Scrutiny
Committee of the respondent-Commission when the process of scrutiny of
documents was still going on.
30. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present
case, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P-17)
to the extent that the petitioner has been considered under General Category is
set aside. Respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission is directed to
consider the case of the petitioner by taking into consideration the eligibility
certificate dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-12) produced by the petitioner
pertaining to Dependent of Ex-Serviceman by considering him in the category
of Dependent of Ex-Servicemen and thereafter, to proceed further. In case the
petitioner is found to be in merit then the respondent-Haryana Staff Selection
Commission shall send the recommendation to the concerned authority in
accordance with law, who shall thereon proceed expeditiously. In case of
appointment of the petitioner, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits
of seniority, pay fixation etc. with effect from the date when similarly situated
persons were appointed. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for salary
of the aforesaid period since he did not work on the post.
26 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115085
31. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from today.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
03.09.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
27 of 27
