Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preeti Singla vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission And ... on 4 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115177-DB
LPA-308-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
118 LPA-308-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.09.2024
Preeti Singla ...Appellant
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Parmod Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
*****
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Through advertisement No.6/2006, the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission (for short - the Commission) invited applications for
appointment to several posts including 816 posts of Art and Crafts Teachers
(for short - Teachers). After completing the selection process in the year
2010, the Commission made recommendations to the State to make
appointments. At that stage, through CWP-18482-2010, the entire selection
was challenged before this Court. Through judgment dated 20.02.2015 such
petition was accepted by a learned Single Judge resulting in the quashing of
the entire selection. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was
challenged through an intra Court appeal being LPA-359-2015 which was
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115177-DB
dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 10.11.2020. The dismissal of the intra
Court appeal was then questioned before the Supreme Court through SLP-
14481-2020 which was also dismissed on 14.12.2020.
2. After the quashing of the entire selection, directions had been
issued to the Commission to conduct fresh selection in a time bound manner.
In compliance with these directions, the Commission published notice dated
28.12.2020 through which all candidates who had applied in pursuance to
advertisement No.6/2006 were informed that a written test shall again be
held on the dates specified in the publication. In response to the said
publication, the appellant, along with other similarly placed candidates, sat
in the written test and cleared the same. Thereafter, from 01.03.2021 to
04.03.2021 all candidates, who had cleared the written examination were
required to come to the Commission for scrutiny of their original documents.
Though most of the eligible candidates got their original documents
scrutinized but the appellant did not. Thereafter, interviews took place from
14.03.2021 to 18.03.2021 in which too the appellant remained absent. Based
on the final score of the candidates, the final result was then declared on
14.11.2021 and thereafter, on the recommendations made by the
Commission appointments were made by the State to the posts in question.
3. In the meanwhile, the appellant petitioned this Court seeking
issuance of directions to the Commission to recommend her case by
condoning her absence at the time of scrutiny of documents and interview.
Such petition of hers being CWP-6263-2021 - Preeti Singla Vs. State of
Haryana and others was disposed of on 18.03.2021 with a direction to the
State to consider the appellant's claim. In pursuance to the directions issued
by this Court, the Commission passed an order dated 05.04.2021 rejecting
the appellant's claim to permit her to take part in the selection process on the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115177-DB
ground that she had failed to respond to the notices issued by the
Commission asking her to appear in the Commission for scrutiny of her
documents as also for the reason that she had not taken part in the interview.
4. In November, 2023, the appellant challenged the order of the
Commission dated 05.04.2021 which petition of hers has been dismissed on
20.12.2023 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Such dismissal is the
subject matter of challenge through the present intra Court appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
6. It remains undisputed that all candidates, like the appellant, who
had cleared the written examination, had been duly informed by the
Commission to appear in the Commission between 01.03.2021 and
04.03.2021 for scrutiny of their original documents and that the candidates
whose documents were found to be in order were also subjected to
interviews in the Commission which took place from 14.03.2021 till
18.03.2021. It is further the admitted position that neither the appellant got
her documents scrutinized between 01.03.2021 and 04.03.2021 nor did she
appear for interview which took place between 14.03.2021 and 18.03.2021.
7. For her non appearance in the Commission for scrutiny of her
original documents and for not appearing for the interview only the appellant
can be blamed.
8. Further, the speaking order passed by the Commission dated
05.04.2021 through which the appellant's claim had been rejected by the
Commission had been challenged by her after an unexplained delay of over
two and a half years and in the meanwhile, selections had not only been
finalized but appointments had also been made to the posts in question.
9. In the light of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115177-DB
10. Dismissed.
11. All pending miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand
disposed of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
04.09.2024
sapna
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
