Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaipal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 April, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 OF 2013
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 09, 2013
Jaipal Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The petitioner who is Physically Handicapped (Ortho) has filed the instant writ petition being aggrieved of the time- frame set up by the Haryana Public Service Commission in the corrigendum dated 15.3.2013, Annexure P3, as regards the conduct of the Main Examination for the HCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services slated to be held w.e.f. 13.4.2013 to 24.4.2013 terming the same to be arbitrary. A further prayer has been raised for staying such main examination commencing from 13.4.2013.
2. A brief factual backdrop would be necessary. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 2 Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to the respondent-Commission) issued advertisement No.5 of 2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts under the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services. The scheme of selection comprised of three stages i.e. (i) Preliminary Examination (for screening purposes only), (ii) Main Examination and (iii) Viva-voce. The Preliminary Examination was conducted by the respondent- Commission and the result thereof was declared on 4.5.2012. On account of the fact that certain discrepancies were noticed in the question papers, aggrieved candidates approached this Court in terms of filing a number of writ petitions. The matter was finally settled in terms of judgment dated 3.12.2012 while disposing of LPA No.1338 of 2012 titled as HPSE v. Jitender Kumar and another and other connected LPAs. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the respondent-Commission published a revised result of candidates having qualified the Preliminary Examination on 31.1.2013.
3. Civil Writ Petition No.5024 of 2012, titled as "Avijit Singh v. State of Haryana and others" came to be filed before this Court seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the State of Haryana to grant benefit of reservation to the extent of 3% in Government posts to the disabled persons who fall within the ambit of the definition of Physically Handicapped as contained in Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as '1995 Act'). An CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 3 affidavit dated 16.3.2013 was filed by the Secretary, Government of Haryana, Personnel Department in this writ petition stating therein that insofar as Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) is concerned, reservation for Physically Handicapped candidates at roster points No.26, 52 and 82 is provided and further asserting that if there would have been reservation policy for persons with disabilities in recruitment to the HCS (Executive Branch) since 1.2.1996, then two posts i.e. Roster points No.26 and 52 would also have come to the share of persons with disabilities. Taking cognizance of such assertion, a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 11.3.2013 in Avijit Singh's case (supra) held that since provisions of the 1995 Act stood enforced from 1.2.1996, it would be the statutory obligation of the State of Haryana to provide 3% reservation as per the mandate of Section 33 of the Act in respect of posts which fell vacant after 1.2.1996. Resultantly, it was held that in the forthcoming selection process relating to Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch), two posts shall be reserved for persons with disabilities so as to clear the backlog pertaining to Roster points No.26 and 52. The writ petition in Avijit Singh's case was disposed of on 11.3.2013 with the following observations:
"In these circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-
i) The Government shall sent a requisition to the Haryana Public Service Commission within a period of three days from today earmarking two posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) for the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 4 persons with disability.
ii) Haryana Public Service Commission shall issue advertisement/clarification/corrigendum stipulating therein that two posts out of the posts which have already been advertised are meant for disabled persons. Fifteen days time shall be given to the eligible candidates to apply for these posts. A preliminary examination for such candidates shall be conducted immediately thereafter by the Commission. Those who qualify the preliminary examination under this category, their main examination can be conducted along with other candidates in respect of whom preliminary examination has already been held. This fact would also be stated in the advertisement which would be issued by the Commission inviting applications from disabled persons."
4. In purported compliance of the directions passed by this Court, the respondent-Commission issued corrigendum dated 15.3.2013 reserving two posts of HCS (Executive Branch) for Physically Handicapped of Haryana, one for Orthopaedically Handicapped and one for Hearing Impaired and reserving one post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer for Physically Handicapped Haryana (for Hearing Impaired) out of the posts already advertised vide advertisement No.5 of 2011. Accordingly, as per corrigendum, the respondent-Commission invited applications from all eligible candidates of Physically Handicapped (Ortho) and Hearing Impaired Handicapped category of Haryana CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 5 only for such reserved posts and fixed 29.3.2013 as the last date for submission of application forms. Candidates were directed to collect their Admit Cards personally on 2nd and 3rd of April, 2013 from the Office of the Commission so as to appear in the Preliminary Examination to be held on 5th and 6th of April, 2013. It was further stipulated that the result of the Preliminary Examination would be declared on 7.4.2013 and 15 times candidates against the three reserved posts including bracketed candidates would be declared qualified for appearing in the HCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Main Examination - 2011 to be held w.e.f. 13.4.2013 to 24.4.2013.
5. The petitioner submitted his application form in response to the corrigendum dated 15.3.2013 within the stipulated time-frame under the category Physically Handicapped (Ortho) and was issued the Admit Card bearing Roll No.70009. The petitioner participated in the Preliminary Examination which was conducted on 5.4.2013 and 6.4.2013.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the result of the Preliminary Examination declared on 7.4.2013 by the respondent-Commission, the petitioner has been declared successful for appearing in the Main Examination. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that upon declaration of the result of the Preliminary Examination i.e. on 7.4.2013, adequate time has not been granted to the petitioner for preparing to appear in the Main Examination which is to commence w.e.f. 13.4.2013. Learned counsel would assail such short time-frame terming the same to be wholly inequitable. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 6 plea of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has also been raised in terms of raising a submission that the petitioner who belongs to the Physically Handicapped category, has been treated unfairly as candidates belong to the General Category as also other candidates who had applied earlier and whose result was declared on 31.1.2013, have been granted proper time and opportunity for preparing for the main Exam, whereas in the present case, upon declaration of the result of Preliminary Examination on 7.4.2013 just a few days time has been granted to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel would even refer to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (for short '2008 Rules') and advert to Rule 11 which envisages a competitive examination to be held yearly for selection of candidates of Register 'B'. Learned counsel would advert to the Schedule given in Annexure III wherein a time-frame in excess of one month has been envisaged between the holding of the Preliminary Examination and the Main Written Examination.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition precisely on account of the following reasons:
(i) Respondent-Commission had issued a corrigendum dated 15.3.2013 whereby reservation had been provided for two posts of HCS (Executive Branch) and one post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer for Physically Handicapped of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 7 Haryana. A comprehensive time-frame was stipulated therein giving out specific dates for submission of application forms, collection of Admit cards, dates for conduct of Preliminary Examination, date of declaration of result of such Preliminary Examination as also the dates for conduct of main Written Examinatiion in respect of candidates declared successful in the Preliminary Examination.
The petitioner had applied in response to the corrigendum dated 15.3.2013 and had, accordingly, been permitted to participate in the Preliminary Examination.
Accordingly, it shall have to be held that the petitioner having submitted himself to the process of selection against the reserved post under the Physically Handicapped category in the light of the corrigendum, would be bound by the detailed time-frame contained therein. It would not be open for the petitioner, on the one hand, to be a beneficiary under the corrigendum so as to avail the benefit of reservation and to participate in the Preliminary Examination and, on the other hand, to be declared successful and then to turn around to raise a voice that adequate time for preparation as regards the main Written Examination, has not been granted to him. It would also require notice that the corrigendum had been issued on 15.3.2013 in which the date of commencement of the main Written Examination i.e. 13.4.2013 had been duly notified. As such, on 15.3.2013 itself, the petitioner was aware that he was to appear in a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 8 Preliminary Examination to be conducted on 5th/6th of April, 2013 and if declared successful to appear in the main Written Examination commencing w.e.f. 13.4.2013. The plea raised by the learned counsel that only three to four days' time has been provided for preparation of the main Written Examination is, thus, wholly mis-conceived.
ii) Even otherwise, the respondent-Commission has issued the corrigendum and has stipulated the time-frame in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.5024 of 2012 'Avijit Singh v. State of Haryana and others'. The directions issued by the Division Bench itself contained a time-frame i.e. the Government to send a requisition to the Commission within a period of three days from the date of passing of the order earmarking two posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) for persons with disabiliity. The Commission thereafter was required to issue corrigendum to clarify that two posts out of the posts already advertised had been earmarked for disabled persons. Fifteen days' time was to be given to the eligible candidates to apply for these posts. A Preliminary Examination for such applicants was to be conducted immediately thereafter. In the directions, the Division Bench had also observed that such candidates who would qualify the Preliminary Examination under such reserved category, their main Examination can be conducted along with the other candidates in respect of whom Preliminary Examination has already been held. Such CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 9 fact was also to be mentioned in the corrigendum to be issued by the Commission.
8. Clearly, the corrigendum dated 15.3.2013 at Annexure P3 had been issued by the respondent-Commission and the time- frame had been stipulated as per directions issued by the Division Bench in the order dated 11.3.2013. Suffice it to observe that the Division Bench while issuing the directions on 11.3.2013 was mindful of the fact that the Preliminary Examination for the posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) had already been conducted and the Main Examination was going to be held in April 2013. This would be apparent from the following extract from the order dated 11.3.2013 passed by the Division Bench:
"The respondents had issued advertisement for filling up the posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) without taking into consideration the aforesaid two posts which were to be reserved for the persons with disability. We are informed that preliminary examination for the posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) has already been conducted and the main examination for the same is going to be held in April, 2013, though as of now the final date for the said examination has not been fixed.
9. That apart, the Schedule given in Annexure-III under Rule 11 of the 2008 Rules has to be construed as directory in nature. Deviations therefrom would be permissible in certain circumstances and situations. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, the result of the Preliminary Examination had been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7445 of 2013 10 declared by the respondent-Commission first in point of time in May, 2012. However, further process of selection in the light of holding of a main Written Examination had to be kept in abeyance on account of the pendency of litigation before this Court. The matter having been settled in the light of judgment dated 3.12.2012 passed in LPA No.1338 of 2012, a revised result of candidates having qualified their Preliminary Examination was issued on 31.1.2013. It is against such backdrop that a main Written Examination is now to commence w.e.f. 13.4.2013 in pursuance to a process of selection initiated by issuance of an advertisement in December 2011. As such, even the time Schedule contained in Annexure-III under Rule 11 of the 2008 Rules would have no applicability in the light of the peculiar facts noticed hereinabove.
10. For the reasons recorded above, I find no basis that would call interference with the action of the respondent- Commission in terms of issuance of corrigendum dated 15.3.2013 and adhering to the time-frame stipulated therein.
11. No merit. Dismissed.
12. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Bench Secretary.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
APRIL 09, 2013 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No