Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmanand vs Union Of India And Others on 10 January, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.26624 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION: January 10,2014
Parmanand
.......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Ms.Sunita Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.S.Khosla, Assistant Solicitor General of India
for UOI.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
An open recruitment process for the post of soldier under OBC category was initiated by respondent No.3 i.e. Director, RTG, Army Recruiting Office, Charkhi Dadri for selection for the post of GD under OBC category. The minimum qualification required for the said post was matric with 45% marks in aggregate along with 33% marks in each subject. The petitioner participated in the process and submitted all relevant documents as per requirement of instructions, Annexure P.1. The petitioner along with other candidates participated in the process and was issued admit card, A fitness test, physical measurement and CWP No.26624 of 2013 2 medical examination was also required. As per case of the petitioner, he was declared successful in physical fitness test, physical measurement test and medical examination which was conducted on 2.9.2013. After verification of documents, an admit card was issued to the petitioner on 28.10.2013. A roll number was also allotted to him for appearance in the common entrance examination. As per requirement, an admit card was issued to the petitioner whereupon a specific identification mark found on the body of the holder of the card along with photograph was also mentioned. The common entrance examination was conducted on 23.11.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner reached the examination centre at Charkhi Dadri and total 1400 candidates were to participate in the open recruitment process. The entry was to be made on the basis of admit car after verification of the photograph and identification mark. The grouse of the petitioner is that he was not allowed to enter in the examination centre as the identification mark as well as thumb impression did not match at the time. Learned counsel also submits that inspite of making all efforts, the petitioner was not allowed and even inspite of showing other identification regarding his personal appearance and his request was not accepted. CWP No.26624 of 2013 3
The present petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the common entrance examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged action of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not allowed to enter the examination hall only on the ground that finger prints did not match which amounts to denial of equal opportunity to appear in the examination. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner's finger printing and retina scan was done before issuance of an admit card and subsequently there was no necessity to match with the finger print and physical identification.
While issuing notice of motion, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded:
"Complains that the petitioner was not permitted to sit in the written examination for common entrance. The admit card has a column of identification marks. Two identical marks have been mentioned as BM RT SHOULDER and BM INNER SIDE OF RT COLLAR BONE.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in process which led to the written examination, finger print and retina scan of the petitioner were taken along with other candidates. She claims that the petitioner's finger printing and CWP No.26624 of 2013 4 retina scan was done before the issuance of admit card and consequently there would be a data base with the respondents with respect to those identification methods. The petitioner was not allowed to enter the examination hall for the reason that the finger print does not match. She submits that there would be a data base on the second finger print barrier and there may have been an error in step of which has led to denial of equal opportunity to appear for the examination. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 25.11.2013 at Annexure P.6, a day after examination. She pleads that the results would be declared on 6.12.2013 and, therefore, time is short to await decision of the representation. In this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Notice of motion for 6.12.2013.
On the asking of this Court, Mr.Anterpreet Singh, Advocate who appears for Ms.R.S.Khosla, Assistant Solicitor General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and waives service on them. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply 4 sets of paper CWP No.26624 of 2013 5 book in the office of Mr.R.S.Khosla, Advocate during the course of the day.
Notice re: interim direction. In the meantime, one post of Soldier GD shall not be filled till further orders.
A copy of this order be given to the parties attested by the Bench Secretary of this Court."
Reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed which is on record. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per procedure of recruitment, all candidates were required to be verified through bio-metric scan (finger print) failing which the physical identification marks recorded in the admit card had to be checked. In case of the petitioner, neither the physical identification marks nor the finger print were tallying and because of that reason, he was not allowed to appear in the common entrance examination. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that mere issuance of admit card does not guarantee entry in the examination. It was not only the case of the petitioner but other 33 candidates were also not allowed in whose case there was no matching of the finger prints or physical identification.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the records of the case. CWP No.26624 of 2013 6
Admittedly, the requirement of matching of finger print and physical identification was necessary at the time of entry in the examination Hall. Total 1400 candidates were to participate in the recruitment process and matching of finger print and identification mark was applicable to each and every candidate. Neither any malafide has been alleged against the respondent nor any other reasons has been mentioned as to why the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the entrance test. Action of the respondent cannot be termed as discriminatory in any manner. Not only the petitioner was denied entry but other 33 candidates were also not allowed to enter in the examination hall on the similar grounds. It cannot be a case of denial of equal opportunities in any manner. Moreover, the process of selection has not been challenged.
There is no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
January 10,2014 (Daya Chaudhary) KD Judge