Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rashpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 August, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 7th , 2013
Rashpal Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab.
Mr.NS Dandiwal, Advocate for respondent No.4.
None for respondent No.6.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court in terms of filing the instant writ petition being aggrieved of the action of the Punjab State Education Department in having denied him consideration for appointment to the post of Master (Hindi) under the Backward Class category.
2. Briefly noticed, an advertisement dated 23.9.2009 was issued inviting applications for recruitment of Lecturers and Masters/Mistresses in various subjects including 713 posts of Malik Sushama Rani 2013.08.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011 2 Masters/Mistresses (Hindi). It has been pleaded that the petitioner who belongs to the Backward Class category and possessed the essential qualifications prescribed, had applied for the post of Hindi Master within the stipulated time frame. The petitioner has secured 58.9864% marks on the basis of qualifications held by him. However, in the final selection list issued by the respondent-Department for the post of Master (Hindi) relating to Backward Class category, the name of the petitioner did not figure.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though no order in writing has been passed and communicated to the petitioner as regards rejection of his claim, but it has been orally informed that the Backward Class certificate submitted before the Scrutiny Committee was dated 28.12.2009 and which was not in terms of the requirement of the relevant condition contained in the advertisement. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioner had submitted the Backward Class certificate dated 2.1.2009 which was within the stipulated time frame i.e. having been issued within one year prior to the closing date for submission of application forms and it was only upon fresh certificate having been demanded by the Scrutiny Committee that the subsequent certificate dated 28.12.2009 had been produced. Learned counsel argues that the Scrutiny Committee has wrongly ignored the Backward Class certificate dated 2.1.2009 and has taken into consideration the certificate dated 28.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated Malik Sushama Rani 2013.08.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011 3 30.9.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.4242 of 2007 "Gyatri Jyoti v. State of Punjab and others" to contend that the condition relating to educational and professional qualifications to be acquired by the last date of submission of applications cannot be read into the requirement of submission of Reservation Certificate. Learned counsel would further submit that the Division Bench judgment in Gyatri Jyoti's case (supra) has thereafter been followed in Civil Writ Petitiion No.6426 of 2009 "Smt.Sumit Smt.Sumit Kaur v. State of Punjab and others"
others (Annexure P19) and Civil Writ Petition No.12564 of 2009 "Poonam Poonam Bala v. State of Punjab and others"
others (Annexure P20).
4. Still further, it has been argued that even though the petitioner has secured 58.9864% and his name figures at Serial No.185 against Backward Class category, yet private respondents No.4 to 7, who have secured lower marks and whose names were reflected at Serial No.195, 197, 200 and 207 in the provisional list against the same very reserved category, have been issued appointment letters/posting orders. Such action, learned counsel argues, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State would contest the claim of the petitioner in terms of referring to the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein a categoric stand has been taken that the certificate of Backward Class category relied upon by the petitioner was dated 28.12.2009 which was produced at the time of scrutiny of original documents but the same was not considered valid in the light of Malik Sushama Rani 2013.08.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011 4 the specific conditions laid down in the advertisement dated 23.9.2009. Learned State counsel would state that accordingly the claim of the petitioner has been considered in the general category and since the last selected candidate in the general category had secured 62.5% marks, whereas the petitioner has secured 58.98%, he could not secure appointment to the post of Hindi Master.
6. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents No.4 and 6 have adopted the same line of reasoning as furnished by the learned State counsel.
7. The relevant conditions contained in the advertisement dated 23.9.2009, Annexure P11, in response to which the petitioner had submitted his application, read in the following terms:
"4) The candidates will ensure that they must fulfill all the prescribed qualifications and conditions on the last date of submission of the applications. In case before or after the appointment, it is found that they don't fulfill any qualification/condition or the information given is found false or incorrect, then their right of candidature will be cancelled and criminal proceedings will be initiated separately under the rules.
6) The certificate of Backward Class is to be of within one year from the last date of submission of applications and this certificate should be in terms of the letter dated 17.01.1994 and 17.08.2005 issued by the Department of Welfare, Punjab Government." Malik Sushama Rani 2013.08.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011 5
8. Even a corrigendum was issued by the Department on 27.9.2009 in relation to Condition No.6 in the following terms:
"The certificate of Backward Class category should not be more than one year prior to the last date of submission and this certificate should be as per the Punjab Government, Department of Welfare letter No.1/41/93-RS/1/209 dated 24.2.2009."
9. The last date for submission of application form was 9.10.2009. Clearly, in the light of Conditions No.4 and 6 contained in the advertisement dated 23.9.2009 read along with the corrigendum dated 27.9.2009, the Backward Class certificate to claim benefit of such reservation had to be issued within one year prior to 9.10.2009 i.e. the last date for submission of application forms.
10. The petitioner contends that a Backward Class certificate dated 2.1.2009 had been submitted which was as per the requirement in the advertisement and at the time of scrutiny of documents, the Scrutiny Committee demanded a fresh certificate and, accordingly, the subsequent certificate dated 28.12.2009 had been produced. However, in the reply, a categoric stand has been taken that it was only the Backward Class certificate dated 28.12.2009 that had been produced by the petitioner at the stage of scrutiny of original documents and the alleged Backward Class certificate dated 2.1.2009 had never been produced before the Departmental Selection Committee. Such categoric stand contained in para 3 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has not met with any rebuttal Malik Sushama Rani 2013.08.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011 6 at the hands of the petitioner. As such, the claim of the petitioner was based upon a Backward Class certificate dated 28.12.2009 i.e. issued much after the closing date for submission of application forms i.e. 9.10.2009.
11. It is by now well settled that the terms and conditions contained in a public notice/advertisement would have binding effect and the same cannot be relaxed or deviated from. An identical issue came up for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.11647 of 2008 decided on 18.5.2009 "Loveljeet Loveljeet Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others"
others and the claim was not accepted after observing as follows:
"The requirement of the notification is that the Certificate should not be older than one year preceding the last date for submission of the applications. All these Backward Class Certificates produced by the petitioners except petitioner No. 6, were issued much after the last date and, thus, cannot be considered for the purposes of selection against the Backward category. No material has been placed on record to show that the petitioners produced Certificates in accordance with condition No. 6 of the advertisement issued by the competent authority within one year preceding the last date for submission of the applications." (emphasis supplied)
12. Even the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the Division Bench judgment in Gyatri Jyoti's case Malik Sushama Rani 2013.08.08 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22861 OF 2011 7 (supra) is mis-placed. Suffice it to notice that in the facts of that case, there was no condition in the public notice/advertisement which mandated the candidate to produce the Backward Class certificate carrying a validity period. In the facts of the present case, the stipulation in the advertisement was categoric i.e. the Backward Class certificate ought to have been issued within a period of one year prior to the last date of submission of application forms.
13. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the action of the respondent-authorities in having considered the claim of the petitioner as a general category candidate and which, in turn, as per merit was not high enough to secure appointment to the post in question.
14. The writ petition is without merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
AUGUST 7th , 2013 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? (Yes/No)
Malik Sushama Rani
2013.08.08 11:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document