Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 754 (PNJ)

Ram Rattan v. State Of Haryana

2002-08-05

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by Ram Rattan petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the action of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No.3, by which the petitioner was refused to be interviewed for the post of Gram Sachiv. A further direction has been sought by the petitioner to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No.3 to interview him and consider his claim for the post of Gram Sachiv. 2. Certain facts may be noticed. The Haryana Subordinate Staff Selection Board (subsequently renamed as Haryana Staff Selection Commission - hereinafter called the "Commission"), respondent No.3 advertised 414 posts of Gram Sachiv for the department of Panchayat, Haryana. Out of the total advertised posts, sixty three posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen category. The copy of the advertisement dated February 22, 1997 has been appended as Annexure P-l with the petition. The case of the petitioner is that he retired from the Indian Army on December 24, 1979 after rendering 17 years of service. A certificate showing the discharge of the petitioner from the Indian Army has been amended as Annexure P-2 with the petition. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner, who was duly qualified for the post applied for the said post under the category reserved for Ex-servicemen. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee of Rs.16/-, copy of the challan showing the deposit of the aforesaid fee of Rs.16/- has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. The application form duly filled by the petitioner was sent through registered post on March 14, 1997. The Commission-respondent No.3 after scrutinising the form of the petitioner, issued him the roll no. 176098 for the written test. The written test was held on February 7, 1999 and the petitioner appeared therein. It is further averred in the petition that the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the roll number slip and this fact was brought to the notice of the examination supervisor and the petitioner requested him for rectification. The examination supervisor assured the petitioner that the error in roll number slip would be rectified. 3. The result of the successful candidates, who has cleared the written examination was published in the newspaper on July 6, 1999, in which the petitioner was declared as a successful candidate. The examination supervisor assured the petitioner that the error in roll number slip would be rectified. 3. The result of the successful candidates, who has cleared the written examination was published in the newspaper on July 6, 1999, in which the petitioner was declared as a successful candidate. In the declaration of the aforesaid result in the newspaper, certain roll numbers of those candidates whose candidature had been cancelled due to unsigned application forms had been separately mentioned but the name of the petitioner was not shown in the said cancelled candidates but was included in the successful candidates. Thereafter the petitioner was called for interview vide office letter No. 1/16/98-IS-Interview/8047 dated June 5, 1999 and he was required to appear for interview on June 25, 1999 with all requisite documents in original. The copy of the aforesaid interview letter has been appended as Annexure P-6 with the petition. The petitioner has averred that he appeared for the aforesaid interview on June 25, 1999 but the respondent ommission refused to interview him on the ground that Column No. 14 of the application form containing a declaration was not signed by him. It is this action of the commission-respondent No. 3 in not interviewing the petitioner, which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present petition. 4. A notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents. They have put in appearance. A written statement has been filed by the Commission-respondent No. 3 contesting the claim of the petitioner. In the written statement, the refusal of the Commission to interview the petitioner is sought to be justified on the ground that the application form filled by the petitioner was unsigned and, therefore, had no legal existence. All other averments with regard to the eligibility, qualifications and passing of the written test by the petitioner have not been controverted in the written statement. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also perused the record. 6. Sh. Shekhar Moudgil, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non signing of Column No. 14 containing the declaration in the application form was wholly an inadvertent error/omission on the part of the petitioner and for that the petitioner could not be penalised to the extent of cancellation of his candidature. Sh. 6. Sh. Shekhar Moudgil, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the non signing of Column No. 14 containing the declaration in the application form was wholly an inadvertent error/omission on the part of the petitioner and for that the petitioner could not be penalised to the extent of cancellation of his candidature. Sh. Moudgil further submits that a perusal of the letter calling the petitioner for interview (Annexure P-6) shows that he was asked to bring certain documents in original while appearing at the time of interview. On that basis it is submitted that if there was some inadvertent omission in not signing the aforesaid declaration in the application form, then the same could be got rectified from the petitioner at that point of-time. Sh. Moudgil further submits that the respondent-Commission had made a thorough scrutiny of the application forms of all the candidates and thereafter sent roll numbers for the written test. He submits that the petitioner had appeared for the interview and had been a successful candidate. On that basis, it is submitted by Sh. Moudgil that since the application form of the petitioner has been scrutinised at different stages by the Commission, therefore it is apparent that the Commission had also over looked the non signing of the declaration form by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner could not be penalised for the aforesaid mistake/over sight. 7. On the other hand Sh. Amol Rattan, the learned AAG, Haryana, appearing for the respondents submits that since the declaration form filled by the petitioner was not signed, therefore, the same could not be treated to be an application form at all and could not be treated to have any legal existence. For this submission, Sh. Amol Rattan has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sunita Kumari v. State of Haryana and Ors. (CWP NO. 6787 of 1998) decided on October 27, ]998. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and feel that the present petition deserves to succeed. It is the admitted position between the parties that the petitioner had submitted his application form through registered post on March 14, 1997. Subsequently, roll number 176098 had also been issued to him to appear for the written test to be held on February 7, 1999. The petitioner had appeared in the written test. It is the admitted position between the parties that the petitioner had submitted his application form through registered post on March 14, 1997. Subsequently, roll number 176098 had also been issued to him to appear for the written test to be held on February 7, 1999. The petitioner had appeared in the written test. At the time of appearing in the written test, an error in the roll number slip was detected by him and he requested for rectification of the same to the examination supervisor. Subsequently the result of the written test was declared and published in the newspaper on July 6, 1999. The petitioner was declared successful and his roll number appeared in the gazette amongst the successful candidates Roll numbers of those candidates whose candidature had been cancelled due to unsigned application forms were communicated separately and their candidature was cancelled. Admittedly, the roll number of the petitioner was not included in the list of aforesaid cancelled candidatures. The respondents have stated in their written statement that the candidature of the petitioner was not cancelled inadvertently. Thus, when the respondent-Commission itself had scrutinised the application forms of all the persons including the petitioner at different stages and found the application form of the petitioner in order then the candidature of the petitioner could not be subsequently cancelled for mere omission of the petitioner to sign the declaration form. Admittedly the petitioner had deposited the requisite fee. He had sent his application form well within time. A roll number was duly issued by the respondent-Commission. The petitioner appeared for the written test successfully. His result was published and he was called for interview. In our opinion at that stage, it was too late in the day for the respondent-Commission to treat the omission of the petitioner as fatal and cancel his candidature. We find that rather than canceling the candidature at that stage, the respondent-Commission could have always asked the petitioner to file an affidavit or give an independent declaration. 9. In Sunita Kumaris case, the candidature of the said petitioner was not taken into consideration because of the unsigned application form. It was in those circumstances that the Division Bench had held that the candidature of the aforesaid petitioner could not be considered by the Commission. The facts in the aforesaid case are quite distinguishable form the facts in the present case. 10. It was in those circumstances that the Division Bench had held that the candidature of the aforesaid petitioner could not be considered by the Commission. The facts in the aforesaid case are quite distinguishable form the facts in the present case. 10. Thus, we allow the present writ petition and direct respondent No. 3 to interview the petitioner on the basis of the written test held by it in pursuance to the advertisement No. 1/97 published on February 22, 1997 whereby 414 posts of Gram Sachivs were advertised. If after the interview, the petitioner is selected then he would be appointed to the post of Gram Sachiv. It is further directed that if the petitioner is appointed in pursuance to the ultimate selection made by the Commission-respodnent No. 3, then the appointment of the petitioner would relate back to the date when all other selections were held and appointments made in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure P-l and the petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any salary for the period prior to his actual appointment. No costs.