Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1237 (PNJ)

Kavita Rani v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission

2010-03-19

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. This petition proceeds on the basis of admitted facts. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Bays No. 67-70, Sector 2, Panchkula issued an advertisement No. 6/2006 dated 20.7.2006 inviting applications for various categories of posts including the posts in the Education Department. As many as 816 posts of Arts & Crafts Teacher under Category No. 22 were notified for selection. The petitioners applied against the aforesaid posts claiming eligible under the advertisement as also the rules. The essential qualifications as laid down in the aforesaid notifications are as under :- E.Q : i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana School Education Board. ii) Two-year Diploma in Art and Crafts examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department. iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric standard." The minimum and maximum age prescribed for the candidate is as under :- "Age :- 18-40 years for all categories" Last date for making application in the office of the Commission was 21.8.2006. A note appended to the advertisement prescribed that the qualification must be possessed by the candidate on the last date fixed for receipt of the application. The relevant extract is noticed here under: "Note :- (i) The benefit of the reservation will be given to those SC/BC and ESM and outstanding sportsperson candidates who are domicile of Haryana State. The SC BC Candidate are required to submit SC/BC Certificates duly issued by the competent authority. (ii) Qualification will be determined with regard to the last date fixed for receipt of application. (iii) Candidate 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 conditions or it is found that the information furnished is false or incorrect their candidature will be cancelled." 2. A writ petition being CWP No. 16214 of 2008 came to be filed before this Court relating to the aforesaid advertisement wherein the petitioners claimed for relaxation of the minimum age upto 17 years, in view of rule position applicable to the service in question. A writ petition being CWP No. 16214 of 2008 came to be filed before this Court relating to the aforesaid advertisement wherein the petitioners claimed for relaxation of the minimum age upto 17 years, in view of rule position applicable to the service in question. On the basis of certain observations/directions, the Government re-examined the question and vide notice/corrigendum dated 24.11.2008 reduced the minimum age from 18 to 17 years. Simultaneously, the candidates were permitted to apply again for the posts upto 10.12.2008. However, a rider continued to operate in so far as the cut-off date for the acquisition of the minimum qualification is concerned, which remained as on 21.8.2006. The relevant extract from the Corrigendum dated 24.11.2008 reads as under :- "... Such candidates who fulfill the aforesaid both the conditions and could not apply earlier may apply now upto 10.12.2008. However, who have already applied and their applications have been rejected solely on the aforesaid ground need not require to apply again as their earlier applications will be considered. Rest of the terms and conditions will remain the same." 3. As a consequence of the aforesaid Corrigendum such candidates who were more than 17 years and less than 18 years of age, the age prescribed under Rules could apply upto 10.12.2008 on account of relaxation vide the Corrigendum and bringing the age at par with that prescribed under the Rules. However, so far as the last date for qualification is concerned, the original date i.e. 21.8.2006 prescribed in the advertisement notice has been retained. As a consequence of the above, there are two cut-off dates one for determination of the age and another for qualification. Although the applications could be made up to the extended date i.e. 10.12.2008. 4. The present petitioners had appeared in the B.Ed examination for which the results came to be declared on 31.8.2008. The petitioners, however, applied in response to the advertisement dated 20.7.2006 in anticipation of the declaration of their results. They were issued the admit card and were even called for interview vide letter dated 11.8.2008. It is alleged that at the time of interview, they were not permitted to participate on the ground that they acquired the essential qualification of B.Ed after the last date notified in the advertisement. They were issued the admit card and were even called for interview vide letter dated 11.8.2008. It is alleged that at the time of interview, they were not permitted to participate on the ground that they acquired the essential qualification of B.Ed after the last date notified in the advertisement. Aggrieved of the action of the respondents, they have filed this petition, seeking quashment of the advertisement/notification dated 20.7.2006 with a further prayer to consider their candidature for the post of Arts and Crafts teacher and to interview them for the said post. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. An interesting and strange question has arisen while the cut-off date for making applications has been extended upto 10.12.2008 permitting those candidates who could not apply on account of the prescription of the higher age of 18 years in contravention to rules wherein the minimum age prescribed is 17 years. The cut off date for acquisition of the qualification continues to be the same as in the original advertisement i.e. 21.8.2006. 7. The petitioners qualified the B.Ed examination on 31.8.2008 i.e. after the original cut off date prescribed in the advertisement. While the cut-off date for those candidates who could not apply on account of wrong prescriptions of the minimum age has been extended, but the same treatment has not been granted to those who acquired, tie qualification between the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement and the corrigendum. 8. Once cut-off date for making applications for one category of the candidates who wanted the relaxation of age has been extended, the similar treatment has been denied to those who acquired qualifications beyond 21.8.2006, the last date for submission of the applications as prescribed in the original advertisement. There cannot be two different yardsticks and different cut off dates in the same advertisement, one for the educational qualification and the other for the age. The purpose to fix the cut off date is to stop the competition at some stage and it is primarily the prerogative of the employer or the selection body. It is equally admitted proposition of law that a candidate should possess the qualifications upto cut off date made in the application unless the advertisement prescribes any other date. The purpose to fix the cut off date is to stop the competition at some stage and it is primarily the prerogative of the employer or the selection body. It is equally admitted proposition of law that a candidate should possess the qualifications upto cut off date made in the application unless the advertisement prescribes any other date. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another, 1997(2) S.C.T. 123 : 1997(3) RSJ, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :- "The Review petitions came up for final hearing on March 3, 1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the 33 respondent. So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated 1st September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by the Dr. T.K. Thommen and Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law,. the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others, 1993(2) S.C.T. 279 : 1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others, 1993(2) S.C.T. 279 : 1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview." 9. In the case of Yogesh Kumar and others v. Government of N.T.C. Delhi and others, 2003(2) S.C.T. 280 : 2003(2) RSJ 707, the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under : "8. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post...." 10. The law propounded by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is now a well settled proposition. However, the aforesaid judgments cannot be applied to the present case, in view of the distinct facts and peculiar circumstances of this case. In the present case, the cut off date for making application has itself been extended by the selection body, in view of the wrong description of the minimum age de hors the rules. The last date for submission of the application in the original advertisement described as 21.8.2008 was extended to 10.12.2008. Under the original advertisement, the cut off date was both for the age and the qualification. The authorities, however, selectively extended the date for minimum age, but retained the same cut off date for qualification which itself is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. No valid reasons have been indicated in the corrigendum for retaining the cut off date for qualification. Under the original advertisement, the cut off date was both for the age and the qualification. The authorities, however, selectively extended the date for minimum age, but retained the same cut off date for qualification which itself is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. No valid reasons have been indicated in the corrigendum for retaining the cut off date for qualification. If the candidates who were eligible were deprived alongwith the stipulations of the age in the original advertisement, similarly, the candidates who acquired the qualification by the extended date of receipt of application have also been deprived of their right of consideration for selection/appointment. Once the age for making application was extended, it should have been applied uniformly both for the purpose of age as also the qualification. A similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Navneet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (4) SCT 192 wherein it has been observed as under :- "It is evident that by the corrigendum the applications for 700 posts and 600 posts of Mathematics Master/Mistress were invited and the date was extended to 31.8.2006. Once the last date for submission of applications has been extended to 31.8.2006, it follows that the eligibility as per Clause 10 would automatically be considered as on 31.8.2006. The detailed marks card of the petitioner in respect of her B.Ed., examination is dated 20.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) and accordingly she has to be considered as eligible." 11. In view of the detailed discussion here-in-above and the observations of the Honble Division Bench, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to interview the petitioners treating them eligible under the advertisement/rules and consider them for selection in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event the petitioners are selected, their merit be determined alongwith the other candidates who have already been interviewed and they would be placed at the appropriate place in the merit/selection list.