Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ruchi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2024
CWP-34280-2024 1 2024. PHHC71 7066S Bae es 3 = = aed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.116 CWP-34280-2024 Date of Decision: 18.12.2024 Ruchi .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Singh Budhwar, Addl. A.G. Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the letter/order dated 07.10.2024, Annexure P-14, as also the letter dated 21.11.2024, Annexure P-13, whereby the petitioner's candidature for the post of TGT Sanskrit under DESM General/unreserved category in response to advertisement 2/2023, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner applied for the post as a DESM General category candidate on the basis of certificate dated 15.02.2023, Annexure P-3. She was duly selected for the post as per result declared on 27.07.2024, Annexure P-6, and recommended for appointment in the respondent Department. Thereafter, she was called for verification of documents by the Document Verification Committee. On account of being under a wrong impression, she submitted before the Committee that her husband had applied for a job under ESM category and, accordingly, she would not claim the benefit or produce the DESM category certificate. It is relevant to mention that her husband had applied for the post of Bank Guard 2024.12.21 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-34280-2024 2 2024. PHHC71 7066S Bae es x = = aed in State Bank of India under ESM category, but he did not join the service and the Bank cancelled his candidature vide communication dated 25.01.2023, Annexure P-7. At the time of making a statement before the Committee, the petitioner had been under the impression that the claim under ESM category would get exhausted even if a candidate did not join service after selection. After realising the mistake, she submitted her request for claiming benefit as DESM category candidate to the Department in response to subsequent notice dated 10.09.2024, Annexure P-8, whereby last opportunity was provided to the candidates to appear before the Committee on 19.09.2024 for document verification along with original certificates/documents pertaining to their claim. By that time, however, the Department had already written a letter dated 09.08.2024 to the Commission bringing to its notice the withdrawal of claim as DESM category candidate by the petitioner. Based upon that, the Commission, vide impugned letter dated 07.10.2024, conveyed that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered as DESM category candidate, and the Department was required to take action regarding cancellation of her candidature. Accordingly, the impugned letter, dated 21.11.2024, cancelling her candidature was issued.
3. In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders have been passed without taking into account the relevant facts of the petitioner's case. The Department itself had issued notice, dated 10.09.2024, inviting candidates to come for document verification. In response thereto, the petitioner claimed the benefit as DESM category candidate along with requisite documents. The fact was never brought to the notice of the Commission, and the impugned order cancelling her candidature was passed without taking that fact into account.
4. It is also contended by the learned counsel that dehors the MANINDER 2024.12.21 16:33 withdrawal of claim as DESM category candidate by the petitioner, she was authenticity of this"
order/judgment.
CWP-34280-2024 3 2024. PHHC71 7066S Bae es x = = aed required to be so considered since a soft copy of her valid certificate had already been uploaded along with the application form, and its hard copy was given to the Commission at the time of scrutiny/verification of documents. The bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner in withdrawing her candidature under a wrong impression could not take away her right to be considered under the category as per entitlement.
5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders, dated 07.10.2024 and 21.11.2024, are hereby set aside with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the petitioner's eligibility as a DESM category candidate for the post in question on the basis of certificate, dated 15.02.2023, submitted to the Document Verification Committee in response to notice dated 10.09.2024, within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order.
6. Disposed of.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 18.12.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANINDER 2024.12.21 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.