Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajneesh Kumar Nanda vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 April, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 4005 of 2011
Date of Decision : 23.4.2013
Rajneesh Kumar Nanda ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court asserting his claim for appointment to the post of Physical Education Lecturer for which post he applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure-P-1), published by the respondents in the newspapers.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that he submitted the detailed marks sheet of his M.P.Ed. course after the last date of receipt of the application, i.e. 9.10.2009. This ground taken by the respondents is contrary to the requirement of the advertisement, which requires a candidate to have passed the degree of Master of Physical Education for being eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education prior to 9.10.2009. He states that petitioner, as per the requirement of the respondents, submitted his claim through an application, which was required to be filled on-line and gave the marks which he had CWP No. 4005 of 2011 -2- obtained in the M.P.Ed. examination. Referring to the detailed mark sheet issued by the University (Annexure-P-3), he states that the petitioner completed the program of M.P.Ed. course in June 2009. Respondents are taking the date of issuance of the detailed mark sheet, i.e. 20.10.2009, to be the date on which the petitioner had passed the M.P. Ed. course for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, which is not sustainable as the requirement of the advertisement was only having passed the Master of Physical Education course prior to the cut-off date. The detailed mark sheet was not required to be attached alongwith the application form and has been admitted by the respondents in para-4 of the reply on merit. The candidates were required to produce the original documents for scrutiny at the time of counselling and not prior thereto. This document was produced by the petitioner at the time of scrutiny when he was placed at Serial No. 7 of the merit list with 70.4% marks in the provisional merit list. He, therefore, contends that the action of the respondents rejecting the candidature of the petitioner cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside and directions be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Physical Education, treating him to be eligible.
On the other hand, counsel for respondents states that as per condition No. 4 of the advertisement, a candidate was to ensure that he fulfills all the prescribed qualifications and conditions as laid down in the advertisement on the last date of submission of the application, which would include possession of the documents by the candidate prior to cut-off date and, therefore, petitioner having submitted the detailed mark sheet, which is dated 20.10.2009, which being subsequent to the last date of submission of the CWP No. 4005 of 2011 -3- application, i.e. 9.10.2009, the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondents. Prayer, therefore, has been made for dismissal of the present writ petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The basic emphasis of the respondents for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is Clause-4 of the terms and conditions as specified in the advertisement dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure-P-1). Clause-4 of these terms and conditions read as follows :-
"4. For these vacancies all the applicants should make it clear that they should fulfill all the requisite conditions and terms before the last date of filing of the application. If before or after appointment at any time, on enquiry it is found that the applicant is not able to fulfill the basic qualification/condition or has given wrong information then their candidature shall be rejected and action can be taken separately as per law."
A perusal of the same lays emphasis upon a candidate fulfilling the requisite conditions and terms before the last date of filing of the application. The qualifications have been prescribed in the advertisement, which require a candidate to be possessing the degree of Master of Physical Education, for which post the petitioner had applied.
It is not the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not pass the degree of Master of Physical Education prior to 9.10.2009. The ground as such taken by the respondents in the written statement is that the petitioner came into possession of the detailed mark sheet on 20.10.2009 and on the date he got the said mark sheet, he would be treated as a person who CWP No. 4005 of 2011 -4- has passed the M.P.Ed. course. This reasoning, which has been projected by the respondents in their reply, cannot be accepted as the requirement of the advertisement for a person to be eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Physical Education Lecturer was that he should be Master of Physical Education prior to the last date of submission of the application, i.e. 9.10.2009.
It has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that the result of the petitioner was declared in June 2009 and he had, as a matter of fact, downloaded the detailed mark sheet and on the basis of those particulars filled in the application form, gave details therein of the marks obtained by him and on that basis respondents have proceeded to prepare the provisional merit list, in which the petitioner was shown to have been placed at Serial No. 7 with 70.4% merit. It is not the stand of the respondents that particulars, which have been furnished by the petitioner with regard to the marks obtained by him in the M.P.Ed. Course, are incorrect or have been found to be not in consonance with the detailed mark sheet, which fortifies the assertion of petitioner that his result was declared in June 2009 and on declaration of the result, a candidate having passed the said course would, therefore, become eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Physical Education Lecturer, as per the requirement in the advertisement.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is declared eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Physical Education Lecturer. Direction is thus, issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Physical Education Lecturer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of CWP No. 4005 of 2011 -5- certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner makes the merit, he be issued appointment letter within a further period of two weeks. In case the petitioner does not make the merit, an intimation to that effect be also conveyed to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 23.4.2013 sjks