Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sompal vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 17 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20945 of 2012
Date of decision: 17.10.2012
Sompal ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
The respondent vide an advertisement dated 18th March, 2011, which was published on 19th March, 2011 in various newspapers, published 1000 posts of Assistant Lineman in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, including various other posts.
The petitioner allegedly being fully eligible applied for selection to the post of Assistant Lineman under the Category of ESM being dependent on his father, who was discharged from Indian Army. According to the petitioner, while submitting his application, he has attached all the relevant documents establishing that he was dependent of Ex-Servicemen.
It is the case of the petitioner that along with his application form, he also attached the dependent certificate issued by the Zila Sainik Board, Bhiwani. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview on 21.6.2012. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for issuance of fresh dependent certificate which was issued to him by the Zila Sainik Board, Bhiwani on 18.4.2012 vide Annexure P-3. The petitioner submitted the aforesaid certificate before the respondent-Authority on 21.6.2012 i.e. at the time of interview.
It is the further case of the petitioner that on 6.9.2012, a notice was issued in the newspaper mentioning that the candidates whose application forms were incomplete informing them with regard to the deficiency in the application forms and appear before the respondent- Authority to furnish their claim. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner whose roll number was also in the said notice appeared before the respondent-Authority on 17.9.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued again dependent certificate on 19.9.2012 mentioning that he was eligible under the ESM category as per the advertisement. The said certificate was submitted to the respondent on 19.9.2012. The petitioner was surprised to know on 4.10.2012 that in the result, his roll number was not found. According to the petitioner, out of 325 posts reserved for ESM General Category, 221 posts are still lying vacant and thus, the act and conduct of the respondent-Authority by not considering his candidature under the ESM General Category being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional is liable to be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the averments made in the writ petition.
At this stage, reference be made to the note (i) to (iii) of the advertisement which reads thus:
Note:- i) The benefit of reservation will be
given only to those SC/BC/PHC and ESM and
outstanding sportsperson candidates who are
domicile of Haryana State. The SC/BC/PHC
candidates are required to submit SC/BC/PHC
Certificate duly issued by the competent authority at the time of interview. Likewise the Outstanding Sports Person shall be required to attach the sport gradation certificate with the application form as per Government instructions duly issued by the competent authority. DESM shall be required to attach the fresh Eligibility Certificate duly issued by the respective Zila Sainik Board with the application form.
(ii) Qualification will be determined with regard to the last date fixed for receipt of applications.
(iii) Candidates applying for a post must ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions on the last date of application. If on verification at any time before or after the written examination or interview or appointment, it is found that they do not fulfill any of the eligibility condition or it is found that the information furnished is false or incorrect their candidature will be cancelled."
As per aforesaid conditions of the advertisement, the petitioner while applying for the post of ALM was required to attach the Eligibility certificate to be issued by the concerned Zila Sainik Board with the application form to claim the reservation under DESM category. Further, the eligibility is also required to be determined on the last date of the submission of the application form i.e. 7.4.2011.
A further reference be also made to the following note as given in the advertisement:
"DESM shall be required to attach the fresh Eligibility Certificate duly issued by the respective Zila Sainik Board with the application form."
Again a specific note has been given that if the application is not in the prescribed format, the same shall be rejected summarily. It has also been prescribed in the general conditions that if a candidate does not possess the requisite academic qualification on the cut off date, his application will be rejected.
In view of the aforesaid conditions for being eligible to be considered under the reserve category of DESM, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to attach the necessary certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with the application form. Since the petitioner failed to attach the necessary certificates along with the application form, no fault can be found in denying him the right of consideration. The reliance of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Parkash versus State of Haryana and others 2005(2) SCT 630, is of no help to him as the judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as in the aforesaid case, the Eligibility Certificate was prepared prior to last date of submission of application but was issued later, whereas in the instant case, admittedly, the Eligibility Certificate of being DESM has been prepared by the competent Authority after the last date of submission of application.
It has been further argued that the intention of the legislature of giving benefit to the category of DESM is to give some benefit to the family of a person who has served the country in the Army and such a right cannot be frustrated on a technical ground as in the instant case. This Court is not convinced with the aforesaid argument as if such a view is taken, the Recruitment Agency/Employer will never be able to finalise the selection process and there may be thousands of candidates like the petitioner who may be eligible to receive such a benefit but have not been able to apply.
No other argument has been raised.
Dismissed.
October 17, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 6th April 2011 which was published in various newspapers on 7th April, 2011, was issued notifying that the age of the candidates should be between 18 to 35 years instead of 18 to 40 years, as advertised earlier. Respondent No.3 further issued a corrigendum dated 1st July, 2011, according to which the posts of Assistant Lineman were enhanced from 1000 to 4131.