Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

45. It is submitted that CM-5058-CWP-2015 had been filed in Antim Kumari's case (supra) by the wait list candidates for impleadment, which had been listed at Sr. No.108 before the said Division Bench on 22.04.2015, but no orders were passed on the said application and their interest was not kept in mind. Reference is, accordingly, made to the letter dated 20.04.2015 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Haryana to the Advocate General that neither there was any provision of law mentioned in the said communication that how the provisions of the rules could be relaxed and 35 of 93 LPA-912-2016 (O&M) & other connected cases -36- neither the Division Bench had discussed the issue. It is, thus, submitted that the State had neither taken any specific stand in Meenakshi Malik's case (supra), but allowed the ineligible persons on two occasions before the Division Bench in Antim Kumar's case (supra) and even before the Single Bench in Meeankshi Malik's case (supra) to be appointed. It is submitted that in the absence of any policy the Secretary could not have violated the rules by giving consent vide communication dated 20.04.2015 which had further been acted upon by the learned Advocate General. Reliance is placed upon the settled principles of law in Ashok Kumar Sonkar's case (supra) as to the sacrosancy of the cut-off-date and the fact that ineligible candidates could not be directed to appear as it would open a flood gate for the authorities.