Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapil vs The Staff Selection Commission on 15 July, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.14854 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14854 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION : 15.7.2013
Kapil
...Petitioner
Versus
The Staff Selection Commission, North West Region, Chandigarh
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
PRESENT: Mr.J.S.Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner
....
Notes: 1.Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioner applied for the post of Data Entry Operator and Lower Division Clerk in a recruitment process conducted by the respondent- Selection Commission, North West Region, Chandigarh. The notice of filling vacancies by direct recruitment were advertised in Employment News, from amongst candidates who are 12th standard pass or equivalent, through a Combined All India Open Examination which has been held on 28.10.2012. The petitioner appeared in the Written Examination held on Khan Md. Firoz 2013.07.24 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CWP No.14854 of 2013 28.10.2012. He pleads that he was declared successful and was short-listed for Data Entry Operator through performance in the Skill Test. He also appeared in the Typing Test meant for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk.
After participating thus far, he was informed that his case for appointment cannot be considered since he had not indicated in the application form the order of preference for amongst the post of Data Entry Operator or Lower Division Clerk or other equivalent post as required under Note 13 of the advertisement. Notes 13, 13.1 , 13.2 and 13.3 read as under:-
" Preference for Posts Use 'L' for Lower Division Clerk (Grade Pay 1900) 'D' for Data Entry Operator (in Grade Pay 2400) 'E' for Data Entry Operator (In Grade Pay less than 2400) 'O' for others (Store Clerk etc.) 13.1, 13.2 & 13.3 : Preference may be indicated carefully, referring the para-13 of the Notice, as no change in option will be entertained later."
When he was informed of the lacuna in his application form, he made an application dated 24.5.2013 (P-6) to the respondent-Commission to permit him to rectify his mistake which was inadvertent.
For lack of indication of preference for either of the posts, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents in not considering his candidature for breach of terms and conditions stipulated in the public notice inviting competition. A clear notice was given in the brochure to all candidates who were advised to be careful in exercising their preferences Khan Md. Firoz 2013.07.24 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CWP No.14854 of 2013 since merit had to be determined post-wise. It was also laid down that no change of option will be entertained later. It is well settled that the terms and conditions of an advertisement are binding on both the parties and no departure can be tolerated or laxity shown for appointment to services under the State. The petitioner has no one to blame, but himself. The mistake or omission may appear to be harmless, but it is not so harmless when seen in the context of recruitment to public posts and competing interests of third party contestants.
After hearing Mr. Duhan, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find that this is a fit enough case warranting interference. The terms and conditions laid down in the brochure/notice are sacrosanct and no departure can be made as that would breach the protection of the equal opportunity clause of third parties who may have made the same mistake and have also been ruled out of consideration but are not before the Court. Allowing a petition of this kind would require a corrigendum or re- advertisement to give the same benefit to others who may be similarly placed. That is neither feasible nor permissible in law.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no life in this petition and the same is dismissed.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 15.7.2013 MFK Khan Md. Firoz 2013.07.24 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh