Punjab-Haryana High Court
Divya Kalia vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 20 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB
CWP-23835
23835-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-23835-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.03.202
.2025
Divya Kalia ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shreya B. Sarin, Advocate and
Mr.. Himanshu Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate Gener
General, Haryana
for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Chhatwal, Advocate for
Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2
No.2-High
High Court.
Mr. Balvinder
inder Singh Sangwan, Advocate
for respondent No.3-HPSC.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, GOEL JUDGE
1. Taking exception to the rejection of her candidature in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination for the year 2023- 2023 2024, the petitioner has sought for grant of a writ for her appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Ha Haryana.
2. Shorn of non-essential essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, adumbrated thus:
(i) Vide Advertisement dated 01.01.2024 (hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'advertisement ' dvertisement in question' question') the respondent No.3 namely Haryana Public Pub Service Commission ((hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'HPSC') advertised the vacancies of Civil Judge (Junior Division)in the 1 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 2 State of Haryana. The relevant Clauses of the advertisement in question read thus::
Clause 1 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'Clause 1') reads thus:
"1. CANDIDATES TO ENSURE THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR THE EXAMINATION: The Candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfill all eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission to all the stage of the examination will be purely provisional subject to satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. Mere issue of e-Admit Admit Card to the candidate will not imply that his/her candidature has been finally cleared by the Commission. The Commission takes up verification of eligibility conditions with reference to original documents uments only after the candidate has qualified for Main Written Examination/Interview/Personality Test.
Note: The decision of the Commi Commission ssion with regard to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for admission to the Examination, shall be final." Clause 3 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'Clause 3') reads thus:
"3. LAST DATE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
The online Applications can be submitted upto 31.01.2024 till 11:55 PM. The candidates shall be issued an ee-Admit Admit Card well before the commencement of the Examination. The ee-Admit Admit Card will be made available on the official website of the Commission for downloading by the candidates. No Admit Card will be sent by post.
Clause 9 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'Clause 9') reads thus:
"9. Plan of Examination:
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Note:
The candidates
ndidates will have to upload the scanned
documents/certificates in support of date of brith, category {viz.
2 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 3 SC/BCA/BCB/EWS/ESM/DESM/DFF/PwBD} and all educational certificates at the time while applying online for the above posts.
The category/caste certificates for BCA/BCB/EWS/DESM should have been issued during the year 2023 2023-24 24 as per latest instructions issued by the Haryana Government in this regard. Further, these certificates should be valid for the year 2023-24.2023
The BC-A/BC-B B certificates should bbee issued according to Haryana Govt. Instructions dated 17.11.2021 & 22.03.2022. The EWS certificate must show the annual income of the family less than Rs.6 lacs as per Govt. Instructions dated 25.02.2019."
Clause 28 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter reinafter to be referred to as 'Clause 28') reads thus:
" xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
ii) The decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of
a candidate for admission to the Examination shall be final.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
Clause 29 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'Clause 29') reads thus:
"29 RESERVATION i. The benefit of reservation will be given only to those SC/BC SC/BC-A/BC A/BC-
B/PwBD/ESM/EWS category candidates who are domicile of Haryana State.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
Clause 30 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'Clause 30') reads thus:
"30 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
vii) Due care should
ould be taken by the candidates while filling up the online application form. Incomplete or defective application form will be summarily rejected. No representation or correspondence regarding such rejection shall be entertained under any circumstances.
3 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 4 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"
Clause 36 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter hereinafter to be referred to as 'Clause 36') reads thus:
"xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
v) The hard copy of application form along with all uploaded
documents must be brought at the time when called upon to do so by the Commission. No document(s) which has/have not been uploaded shall be entertained.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx"
(ii) The petitioner is stated to have submi
submitted
tted the online application
form, as a Scheduled Caste Candidate (hereinafter referred to as 'SC Candidate') on 24.01.2024 i.e. within the time stipulated in the Candidate'), advertisement in question.
question The petitioner submitted her Scheduled Caste Certificate dated 11.07.2016 (hereinafter referre referred to as 'SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016').The petitioner further appeared for the preliminary examination 11.07.2016').The on 03.03.2024 and upon passing the same, she cleared the main written examination which was conducted from 12.07.2024 to 14.07.2024. The T schedule of viva voce was issued and the petitioner was slated to be interviewed on 15.09.2024.
(iii) On 05.09.2024, the petitioner received an intimation from HPSC,, relevant whereof reads as under:
"Kindly Kindly refer to your online application form for the post cited as the subject. On checking/scrutiny of your online application form to adjudge your eligibility, your candidature has found provisionally liable for rejection due to the following reasons:
reasons:-
1. You have attached the certificate of SC category dated 11.07 11.07.2016 .2016 without registration number & date.
2. You have not attached the domicile of Haryana.
4 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 5 If you have any objection against the rejection, you can submit your representation along with documentary proof through ee-mail mail i.e. [email protected] upto 07.09.2024 .09.2024 till 04:00 PM, failing which no representation will be entertained by the Commission and your candidature will be finally rejected.
rejected."
(iv) On 05.09.2024 itself; the petitioner informed HPSC,, by way of e-mail, mail, that her requisite caste certificate aass also the domicile certificate had already been submitted but, somehow, the registration number and date was missing from her SC certificate dated 11.07.2016. The petitioner pleaded with the HPSC that the SC certificate dated 11.07.2016 submitted by the petitioner was correct one and the same had been issued on the basis of Scheduled Caste Certificate of her father which dated back to 11.07.1991. The petitioner also sought for a clarification regarding the genuineness of her SC certificate dated 11.07.2016from 11.07.20 from Tehsildar, Gurugram (respondent No.4 herein) and the said certificate was found to be genuine by the said authority. She informed HPSC about it as well.
(v) Vide order dated 12.09.2024 (hereinafter hereinafter referred to as 'impugned impugned order') HPSC rejected the candidature of the petitioner petitioner.
(vi) This Court had passed an order dated 18.09.2024 while the petition tition in hand was under consideration, in the hands of this Court, for grant of interim relief, relevant whereof reads as under:
"xxxxxxx In the meanwhile, petitioner be permitted to participate provisionally in the interview/viva interview/viva-voce voce which it is stated is being held from 13.09.2024 to 29.09.2024. It is made clear that participation in this interview shall not vest the petitioner with any ri right ght whatsoever for selection and is completely subject to decision of this writ petition. Her result be kept in sealed cover.
xxxxxxxx."
5 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 6
(vii) It is in this factual backdrop, that the present writ petition has come me up for receiving final consideration at the hands of this Court. Rival contentions
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner; led by Sh Sh. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate; have argued that the petitioner is a bona fide SC category candidate and had submitted the requisite SC certificate with regard to the terms of the advertisement in question. Learned counsel has iterated that, the non-mentioning mentioning of the date and registration number upon the SC certificate dated 11.07.2016, 11.07.2016, was not within the control of the petitioner. It has, thus, been urged that all that the petitioner could have done was to seek a certificate from the concerned authorities, which she in in-fact fact did and thereafter submitted the same, same for the examination in question. Learned counsel has further iterated that, onc once the HPSC has sought for a clarification regarding the SC certificate dated 11.07.2016, the same was promptly given by the petitioner and thus she cannot be fastened with any adverse consequence in this regard. It has been further submitted that the SC certificate rtificate dated 11.07.2016 has been found to be valid by respondent No.4 (Tehsildar Gurugram) and thus there was no cause with the HPSC to reject the candidature of the petitioner.
On strength of these submissions, the grant of writ petition in hand is entreated for.
4. In response to notice of motion by this Court, respondents caused appearance through counsel.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 has raised submissions submission in tandem with a short reply by way of affidavit of Ms. Ms 6 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 7 Shikha, Tehsildar, Gurugram. The gravamen of th this short reply is that the SC certificate dated 11.07.2016 issued in favour of the petitioner by the concerned State authority(s) is valid valid and it has also been admitted that the said certificate was not numbered.
4.2. No written reply has been submitted on behalf of respondent No.2-High High Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 No.2-High High Court has iterated that the HPSC is the recruiting agency and, insofar as the present lis is concerned, the respondent espondent No.2 does not have any effective or substantial role in adjudication thereof. 4.3. Respondent No.3-HPSC has filed a short reply by Shri Satish Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, while raising submission in tandem with the said short reply, has submitted that the Clause 1 casts a responsibility upon the candidates for ensuring their eligibility by submitting the requisite documents. Learned counsel has further strenuously relied upon Clause 30 to iterate that the advertisement in question clearly prescribes that the incomplete or defective application form will be summarily rejected and thus there arises no cause with the petitioner to now rectify the error. Learned counsel has further argued that the stipulations provided in the advertisement in question carry the force of law and nd apply with equal vigour to one and all with no scope for relaxation therein. Learned earned counsel has, has thus, pressed that any candidate who has not complied with the requisite stipulations, is bound to invite adverse consequences. Learned counsel has further furth urged that the petitioner could not have, later on, submitted documents etc. etc in support of the genuineness of the SC certificate dated 11.07.2016 and thus her candidature has rightly been rejected. On the 7 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 8 strength of these submissions, learned counsel aappearing ppearing for respondent No.3 has sought for dismissal of the writ petition in hand.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record.
Prime issue
6. The prime issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition in hand is, is as to whether the petitioner's candidature as a SC candidate, was wrongly rejected by the HPSC. In case it is found so, what relief(s) ought to be afforded to the petitioner.
The seminal legal issue that arises for cogitation is whether the candidature ndidature of an aspirant in a selection/examination process, who is otherwise eligible, eligible, ought to be rejected by the selecting/examining agency on account of inadvertent submission of an irregular/incomplete certificate which is sought to be substituted by a correct/complete certificate at a stage subsequent to the cut-off-date cut date for applying to such selection/examination process.
Relevant Statute Statut
7. Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as under:
"226.
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs writs.-- (1)Notwithstanding Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including iin n appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred ed by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
8 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 9 Relevant Case Law
8. The precedents, apropos to the matter(s) in issue, are as follows:
(i) In a judgment titled as Charles K. Skaria and others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others,1980 others, AIR 1230,the the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"20. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before tthe he last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the hand made but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence.
(ii) In a judgment titled as Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar, AIRONLINE 1997 SC 700,a T Three hree Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"6. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Th Thee proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-
well established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview interview; other similarly placed persons could also have applied. JJust ust because some of the persons had
9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 10 applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application applications ought to have been rejected at the inception eption itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
(iii) In a judgment titled as Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others 2004 AIR Supreme Court 5043, 5043 a T Three hree Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 ha to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark-
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 hol holding ding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to 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 nciple 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."
(iv) In a judgment titled as Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others, 2011(12) 2011(1 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"28. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted stri strictly ctly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement ent unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a
10 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 11 power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rul Rules, es, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity rtunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
(v) In a judgment titled as Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr.
Anr.AIR AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 1098,the 1098,the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"15. xxx xxx xxx xxx Xxx xxx xxx xxx
18. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4),, therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right iin n social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged aand nd disabled citizens of the society meaningful. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
16. In our considered view, the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul (supra) wherein this Court rt after interpretation of Articles 14,15,16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, loyment, as candidates belonging to these
11 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 12 categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
(vi) In a judgment titled as Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. in SLP (C) No.14948 of 2016, decided on 28.09.2022, 28.09.2022 a Three hree Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"It It must be stated here that an identical fact situation came up for consideration before this Court in Ram Kumar umar 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."
(vii) In a judgment titled as Divya vs. Union of India & Ors. 2024(1) SCC 448, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"43. In Charles K. Skaria (supra), most candidates possessed the eligibility viz. the diploma. Only the proof in the form of certificate was awaited. The authorities had also accepted them as eligible, expressly informing the selection committee ommittee that for eligible candidates even if proof came later and before the final selection, it should be considered as valid. This was also equally the situation in Dolly Chhanda (supra), Alok Kumar Singh ngh (supra) and Dheerender Singh Paliwal (supra) where the factual position about the eligibility was not in dispute. Those cases and the cases of that ilk cannot support the petitioners in this case for the purpose of claiming eligibility in CSE CSE-2022 as an EWS candidate.
44. xxxxxxxx
45. xxxxxxxx
46. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last date for submission of the application. (See Rekha Chaturvedi v. Un University of Rajasthan [1993 12 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 13 Supp (3) SCC 168]; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262]; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54].
54]
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
53. Quite apart from the above, much water has also flown under the bridge. The UPSC has made the cadre allocations and the EWS candidates against the 298 vacancies have also been allotted their respective ective cadres. Today, it is legally not permissible and administratively not feasible for the UPSC to unscramble the egg. Accepting the contention of the petitioners would also result in administrative chaos and will prolong the selection process indefinit indefinitely.
Analysis (re law)
9. It is trite law that a candidate, seeking public employment, must possess the requisite mandatory qualification(s) as on the prescribed cut-off-date.
date.
The Three Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and Bedanga Talukdar (supra) unequivocally enunciates that the eligibility of a candidate is required to be adjudged with scrupulous reference to the cut-off-date cut date and that date alone. A person, who acquires the requisite prescribed prescri qualification,, subsequent to such a prescribed cut-off date, renders himself ineligible and cannot be shown any relaxation unless the extant rules so provide.
provide As a pivotal imperative pre pre-requisite thereof, a candidate is pertinently required to possess the mandatory qualification(s), as sought for by the t concerned selecting/examining agency, agency on the cut-off-date; whereas, acquiring them subsequently would not render such a candidate eligible& & failure therein would incur in consequential penal effect(s).
(s).
The general rule, thus, is that a candidate must deposit all requisite certificate(s) etc. at the time of submitting his application form and he ought not to be permitted to rectify such certificate(s). However, possession of a qualification is starkly arkly distinct from the proof thereof. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 13 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 14 ofCharles Charles K. Skaria (supra) has held that what is essential is the possession of a qualification before the concerned date and mode of proof thereof thereof, is ancillary.
ancillary Following this dicta; the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dolly Chhanda (supra), Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and Karan Singh Yadav (supra); has carved out exception(s) when it relates to submission of a certificate/testimonial with a technical defect/irregularity, which was beyond the reasonable control of such candidate candidate(s). It is an unshaken canon of our jurisprudence that when substantial and technical co considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Procedural and technical hurdles ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of substantial justice. It must be grasped that the concept of substantial justice is respected not on account of its power to legalize an otherwise injustice configured so endowed with a sceptre nay SENGOL on technical grounds grounds; but because it is for striking out and is expected to do so. If the procedural violation does not cause prejudice to anyone else, the concept of substantial justice requires that the Courts/authorities must lean towards effectuating justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violations. When substanti substantial al & procedural considerations stand in opposition, the former must invariably prevail, for justice is not a mere m mechanical exercise but a tangible pursuit of truth & fairness. The dicta of these judgments ments, essentially, grants a latitude to the reserved category aspirants, treating the submission of irregular/technically defective certificate(s) certificate(s), being essentially procedural lapse(s) which may be condoned condoned, in view of the facts involved. The common denominator, denominator, which runs through these decisions is that, eeven ven when correct requisite certificate(s) were allowed to be submitted belatedly, such candidate did actually possess such qualification on the cut-off-date.
date. In other words, the Apex Court has enunciated that such certificate(s) certificate(s)/testimonial(s) testimonial(s) were 14 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 15 proof off an attribute which the candidate already possessed of and such attribute was not attained after the cut-off-date.
cut Judicial notice can well be taken by this Court that, such reservation certificate(s) are, are more often than not, issued at the end of the concerned authority(s) and a candidate does not have any say nay authoritative say in issuance thereof. In actual ual life, it is often exasperatingly cumbersome for a candidate to obtain requisite certificate nay one issued in the exact prescribed form from the concerned authority. A technical irregularity/defect in such certificate(s) certificate issued by the concerned competent authority is, thus, beyond the control of an aspirant. Actual excellence or even basic eligibility eligibility, thus, cannot be permitted mitted to be obliterated by the choice of an orthodox interpretation of law and procedure. Equity ought to overpower technicality where the justice so demands. In the realm of writ jurisdiction, courts are duty bound to uphold the paramount cause of substantial tantial justice, ensuring that the dispensation of justice is not thwarted by mere technicalities While procedural considerations serve as necessary safeguards to technicalities.
ensure orderly adjudication, they must never be exalted to the extent that they eclipse the fundamental tenets of fairness, equity and justice or even moribund the cause of justice.
justice The Court, as a sentinell of justice, must wield its discretionary power to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from rigid adherence to procedural formalities. Equity, being the soul of justice, demands that the courts adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach, ensuring that the form does not triumph over the substance. A constitutional court, vested with extra extra-ordinary ordinary jurisdiction, must, therefore, eschew hyper-technical hyper echnical reasoning and focus on the broader ends of justice, for the law must ever remain a handmaiden to justice & not an instrument of oppression or procedural entanglement.
15 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 16
10. A conundrum faced by the selecting/examining agency in such a scenario, seeks attention, namely; granting latitude to the candidate(s) for submission of correct/technical error free certificate(s) after the last date of depositing of application form having passed, poses a threat of uncertainty, uncertainty looming large in the selection/examination selection/examination process process, as also may cause delay in culmination thereof.
thereof A candidate, while making an application and submitting documents in support thereof, thereof indubitably ought to be diligent and any laxity ought not to be condoned as has been in the case of Divya (supra). Document(s)/certificate(s) required to be submitted have to be scrupulously checked by the candidate concerned before submission thereof. A candidate can cannot be afforded latitude for omission(s) on his part as the selecting/examining agency has to proceed on the basis of application and documents submitted by the candidate. In case an error has occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the ap applicant, plicant, namely, an incorrect/technically defective certificate(s) certificate(s), received by the candidate from the competent authority, having been presented by the candidate candidate, in the back drop of such a candidate actually possessing the requisite qualification, some latitude atitude may be extendable extend to such a candidate. It is indubitable that it is for the candidate to show good cause, cause, with certitude, for grant of such a latitude. Also, corrective or remedial steps ought to be undertaken at the end of the concerned candidate, e, at the earliest feasible date, since the time lapse may, by itself proscribe any such latitude as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Divya (supra).
Ergo; the conundrum is set at naught; viz, a candidate seeking latitude for submission of an incorrect/defective certificate alongwith the application form is required to show tangible cause or accentuating circumstances, at the earliest opportunity lest the timeline itself may non-suit suit such candidate. No 16 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 17 exhaustive set of such circumstances/cause(s) circumstances e(s) can possibly be laid down however alluring this aspect may be. It is neither fathomable nor desirable to lay down any straight jacket formula in this regard. Any attempt in this case would be, to say the least, quixotic endeavour. Circumstantial fl flexibility, exibility, one additional or different fferent fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions in two cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of a particular lis, since every case has its own peculiar factual cons conspectus.
Analysis (re ( facts of the present case)
11. The petitioner, while laying forth her claim as a SC Candidate, in response to the advertisement in question submitted her SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 which clearly stipulates that such certificate was issued by the concerned competent comp tent authority, namely, the Tehsildar, Gurugram on the basis of an earlier SC certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.05.2012. It also further reflects that the certificate ha had been issued on the basis of a Scheduled S Caste certificate date dated 14.07.1976 issued to the father of the petitioner. Two fold objections were raised by the HPSC vide communication dated 05.09.2024 i.e. firstly the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 did not have any registration number and ddate &, secondly,, the domicile certificate of the petitioner for the State of Haryana was not attached.
A perusal of the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 reflects that the registration number as also date is not mentioned on the top left side thereof but on the bottom left side of the same same, the date is mentioned as 11.07.2016. Hence, the objection raised by HPSC regarding non-mentioning mentioning of date on the top left side of the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 is sans logic. It is a trivial error and law does not concern itself with trifles as per 17 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 18 salutary legal principle enshrined in the maxim De Minimus Non Curat Lex. Further, by no stretch of imagination, the non non-mentioning mentioning of registration number on the top left side of the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 can be attributed to the petitioner as it was for the concerned competent authority, (Tehsildar dar of Gurugram in the present case case),, to mention the registration number. Further, the factum of non-mentioning non mentioning of registration number on the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 has been conceded in the stand of respondent No.1, respondents 1, 4 and 5 which includes the said concerned competent authority (Tehsildar, Gurugram). Still further, the SC certificate dated 14.05.2012 issued in favour of the petitioner, which forms the basi basiss of the issuance of the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 11.07.2016has has been vouchsafed by the competent authority. It clearlyy further emanates from the fac factual tual matrix of the case in hand that the requisite domicile certificate was, in fact, uploaded by the petitioner petitioner in terms of the advertisement in question. The refuge, sought to be taken by HPSC, under clauses 28, 30 & 26 26is actually subterfuge rfuge which calls for rejection for justice must not be shackled by the chains of formality.
11.1 The impugned order,, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, was issued on 12.09.2024. The petitioner appears to have got drafted the writ petition in hand on or around 13.09.2024 and the same came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 18.09.2024 wherein an interim order was extended in favour of the petitioner petitioner, permitting her to provisionally participate in the viva-voce.
viva voce. In this factual back drop, it cannot be said that the petitioner's plea can be proscribed as being time barred. Further, rther, it emerged as a common ground between the learned counsel for rival parties during the course of arguments, that pursuant to the interim 18 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 19 order dated 18.09.2024 passed by this Court, the petitioner actually appeared for the viva-voce viva voce and has achieved the requisite thresh threshold old marks for being appointed.
11.2 Keeping in view the entirety of the fa factual ctual matrix of the case in hand; especially the factum of no fault being attributable to the petitioner in the format (date and registration number) of the requisite SC certificate certificate,, the concerned competent authority (Tehsildar, Gurugram) ratifying the veracity of the SC certificate dated 11.07.2016 of the petitioner, the fault (if any) being solely at the end of the concerned competent authority in issuing the SC certificate dated 11.07.2016of 1 of the petitioner without a registration number and date, the petitioner pursuing her legal right expeditiously and diligently & the contumacious rationale sought to be employed by HPSC for justifying the rejection of the petitioner's candidature; the quashing of the impugned order would serve the cause of complete nay substantial and restitutive justice.
12. Before parting with this order, another aspect of the lis in hand craves attention.
attention. In discharging its role as a litigant, the State (as also its instrumentalities) must adopt a balanced and judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims indiscriminately. The State must exercise due diligence in distinguishing be between tween a baseless and a legitimate claim. While it is justified in defending itself against spurious claims, this duty must be discharged with a sense of responsibility. The Constitutional framework envisions the State as a Welfare State, which is inherently inherentl obligated to act in the best interest of its citizens. In litigation involving the State and its citizens, this welfare-oriented welfare oriented ethos must guide the State's conduct. Unlike a private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a 19 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 20 favourable judgment, judgment, the State bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity.
The Courts across the legal system -- thiss Court being not an exception -- are choked with litigation. Frivolous and ground groundless less dispute(s) constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the overburdened infrastructure. Productive resources, which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes, are dissipated in pursuing worthless cause(s). In our jurisprudential eco eco-system, the State is the largest litigant today and the huge expenditure involved makes a big draft on the public exchequer. The present case is an unsoothing illustration of, how litigations are pursued on behalf of tthe State (HPSC, to be more precise, in the case in hand), hand in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion. The proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance & judicial al propriety. Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system. This tendency can be curbed only if the Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes penalizes such comportment. The imposition of costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct. Ergo, this Court deems it appropriate to saddle HPSC with costs, which indubitably ought to be veritable and real time in nature.
Decision
13. In view of the preceding ratiocination, the writ petition in hand is disposed of, in following terms:
20 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037668-DB CWP-23835 23835-2024 21
(i) The impugned order dated 12.09.2024 (whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent-HPSC)) is quashed. Respondents are mandated to take, forthwith, requisite consequential steps accordingly.
(ii) HPSC is directed to pay to the petitioner costs of Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/ within two weeks from today. Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,0 Rs.1,00,000/- is further saddled upon HPSC to be deposited in favour of Poor Patient's Welfare Fund PGIMER, Chandigarh within two weeks from today for having wasted precious time of this Court which could have been utilized for hearing & deciding more pressing matters. Liberty is reserved in favour of the HPSC to recover the costs, in accordance with law, from the concerned erring Official(s).
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
14. The respondent-authorities authorities are directed to file compliance-
compliance affidavit(s)
(s),, in terms of the directions made hereinabove, within four weeks from today, failing which they may invite punitive consequences (as per law) for themselves as also their concerned functionaries functionaries. Bee put up on 05.05.2025 for consideration of such compliance ompliance-affidavit(s).
(SUMEET GOEL) (SHEEL NAGU)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
March 20
0, 2025
Ajay/Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
21 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 21-03-2025 04:18:56 :::