Punjab-Haryana High Court
Usha Dhillon vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 December, 2014
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
C. W. P. No. 23185 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. W. P. No. 23185 of 2014
Date of Decision : December 15, 2014
Usha Dhillon .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.
* * *
Present : Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R. D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate
for respondents no. 2 and 3.
Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate
for respondent no. 4.
* * *
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. :
Written statement on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3, filed today in Court, is taken on record.
Through the present writ, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her MONIKA candidature under the Ex-serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex- 2014.12.19 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. No. 23185 of 2014 2
serviceman for the post of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch), advertised vide advertisement dated 18.09.2014. She also prays for quashing of order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as - the Commission), rejecting the representation of the petitioner, through which she had requested the Commission to do what she is now praying that this Court may direct them to do.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief are that through advertisement dated 18.09.2014, applications were invited for 119 posts in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The petitioner, who claims herself to be a dependent of an Ex-serviceman, states that she tried to apply online a number of times before 29.09.2014, but there being an error on the website, she could not apply. Ultimately, on 29.09.2014, she says that she was able to apply online and when it came to selection of category, she had applied under the Ex-serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex- serviceman, but when she took out a print, she was shocked to see that the category against which she had applied was shown as Special Backward Class. It is the case of the petitioner that in this state of shock, on the same day i.e. 29.09.2014, she approached the Commission and apprised them of the above problem. She says that she was told by an official that this was normal and that she may now give an application through a hard copy. As per the case of the petitioner, accordingly, on 01.10.2014, she submitted an MONIKA 2014.12.19 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. No. 23185 of 2014 3 application to the Commission requesting them to consider her under the Ex-serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex-serviceman instead of Special Backward Class. This application of hers was duly received by the Commission on 01.10.2014. The petitioner further submits that vide letter dated 21.10.2014, the Commission rejected her request for change of category. It is this letter that the petitioner impugns through the present petition.
On notice of motion having been issued to the respondents, the Commission has filed a written statement countering the averments of the petitioner, as referred to above. The Commission seeks rejection of the present petition on the ground that the story set out by the petitioner was not possible. It is stated that there was no such computer glitch, as being sought to be projected by the petitioner because had that been so, other candidates would have also encountered a similar problem and would have approached the Commission with grievances similar to the grievance raised by the petitioner. The Commission further submits that since the petitioner had applied under the category of Special Backward Class, she could be considered only under that category and none else.
Without going into the disputed issue of there being an error on the website of Commission or not, we intend allowing this petition. It is undisputed before us that the last date for filing of the application was 18.10.2014. Irrespective of the fact whether on 29.09.2014, there was or MONIKA 2014.12.19 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. No. 23185 of 2014 4 was not a computer glitch, it is admitted before us that on 01.10.2014 i.e. much before the last date before which application could be submitted, she had moved an application before the Commission requesting the Commission to consider her under the Ex-serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex-serviceman. This application was duly received by the Commission on 01.10.2014. Once this application was moved much before the last date of application, then according to us, there was no reason for the Commission not to consider the name of the petitioner in the category, under which she intended to apply. All that the petitioner wanted was consideration of her name in the category, to which, according to her, she belonged. Even otherwise, we feel that the application should not be thrown out at the very threshold and that too, on a hyper-technical objection.
The above issue can be viewed from another angle. It is very possible that while a candidate is applying online, he or she may, through a bona fide mistake, apply under a category in which one does not intend to. On a question being asked to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission, whether there was a provision on the website of the Commission allowing correction in the online application form, the answer came in the negative. Therefore, there was no option left with the petitioner, but to approach the Commission through her application dated 01.10.2014. If one is human, one will err. What the Court would MONIKA 2014.12.19 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. No. 23185 of 2014 5 normally see is whether that error is bona fide. We find that the error in the case in hand was, in fact, bona fide, and therefore, are inclined to interfere and grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner.
The application of the petitioner has been rejected at the very threshold, when the rights of no other candidate has been adjudged. Therefore, the rights of no other candidate would be effected, if the application of the petitioner is permitted to be considered, as prayed for.
In view of the above and finding the action on the part of the Commission to be hyper-technical, we allow the present petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under the Ex- serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex-serviceman, in accordance with law.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
JUDGE JUDGE
December 15, 2014
monika
MONIKA
2014.12.19 10:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document