Punjab-Haryana High Court
Priti vs State Of U.T Chandigarh And Ors on 19 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123983
CWP-23880-2024 1
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-23880-2024
Date of Decision:19.09.2024
PRITI ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH AND ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. I.S. Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider
her under OBC Category instead of General Category.
2. The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement applied for the
post of TGT (Masters/Mistress). She in her application form applied
under General Category though she belongs to Other Backward Class
Category. She appeared in the written test and provisional list was
declared. At this stage, she realized that she has wrongly applied under
General Category. She made a representation dated 26.08.2024
(Annexure P-6) to respondent requesting to change her category.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a bona
fide mistake on the part of petitioner. She should not be denied her
valuable rights. She qualifies under OBC Category.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123983
5. A two-judge Bench of Supreme Court in J & K Public
Service Commission vs. Israr Ahmad and ors., 2005 (12) SCC 498 has
held that a candidate cannot be permitted to claim benefit of reservation
after participating in the examination process.
In the said case, the petitioner after passing preliminary
examination claimed benefit of reservation. A single judge of High Court
of J & K held that a candidate was not entitled to benefit of reservation,
however, a Division Bench extended benefit of reservation. The Apex
Court reversed judgment of Division Bench holding that a candidate
cannot be permitted to claim benefit of reserved category after last date of
submitting application. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as :
3. The first respondent thereafter challenged the
selection by filing a writ petition and the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir held that the first respondent was not entitled
to the benefit of reservation based on SRO 126 of 1994
as he had not indicated in his application for the
preliminary examination that he was entitled to such
benefit. The writ petition filed by the first respondent
was dismissed and he challenged the same by way of
LPA (SW) No. D- 29 of 2002 and the Division Bench
of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that the
first respondent herein in fact possesses the eligibility
for being considered in the reserved category even
before the date of advertisement and he submitted his
proof only later and that by itself did not disentitle him
from claiming the reservation. Accordingly, the LPA
was allowed and the direction to treat him under the
reserved category was issued. This is challenged
before us by the Public Service Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that as
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123983
the last date for submitting the application was 16-3-
1999 the respondent did not produce the certificate
claiming reservation nor did he indicate in the
application that he belongs to that category. It was
submitted that several other applications of similar
nature were rejected by the Commission and the
respondent's application also was treated alike and
the Division Bench erred in coming to the conclusion
that he was entitled to get reservation. Counsel for the
respondent on the other hand pointed out that though
the first respondent did not avail of the benefit of
reservation when he submitted the application for the
preliminary examination he had submitted the
application for the main examination in which he had
clearly shown that he was entitled to get reservation
as per SRO 126 of 1994 dated 20-6-1994 and he had
also produced the certificate along with the
application for the main examination. It is submitted
that he had claimed the reservation for the main
examination and he should have been treated as a
reserved candidate in the main examination.
5. We have considered the rival contentions advanced
by both the parties. The contention of the first
respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied
for selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation.
He did not produce any certificate along with his
application. The fact that he has not availed of the
benefit for the preliminary examination itself is
sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get
reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as
a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the
main examination he cannot avail of reservation on
the ground that he was successful in getting the
required certificate only at a later stage. The nature
and status of the candidate who was applying for the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123983
selection could only be treated alike and once a
candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which
he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and
make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct
in holding that as a candidate he had also had the
qualification and the production of the certificate at a
later stage would make him entitled to seek
reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of
the Division Bench and allow the appeal.
No costs."
6. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by aforesaid
judgment. In the case in hand, the petitioner neither before the last date
nor before the date of examination approached authorities for correction
of her category. She appeared in the exam under General Category and
on being declared unsuccessful under the said category, is claiming
change of category. The claim of the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be
countenanced.
7. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the present petition sans merit and deserves to
be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
19.09.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
