Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Jagdish Kaur - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 14140 of 2013
Decided On : 08-09-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Avinit Avasthi, AAG, Punjab.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person's category is determined by birth and marriage, and technical discrepancies in certificates should not unjustly exclude eligible candidates from consideration.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Inclusion in Merit List - Backward Class Category - 2005 Instructions - Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought inclusion in the merit list for the position of Staff Nurse in the Backward Class category. Despite obtaining higher marks than some candidates in the merit list, her name was excluded due to discrepancies in her Backward Class certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, belonging to the Backward Class category by birth and marriage, was unfairly excluded from the merit list due to a technicality in her certificate. The court held that non-production of the certificate at the time of application was not fatal and the petitioner's exclusion violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the petitioner's Backward Class certificate and the fairness of her exclusion from the merit list despite meeting the eligibility criteria and obtaining higher marks than some selected candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a person's category is determined by birth and marriage, and non-production of the certificate at the time of application should not be a ground for rejection. The court cited previous cases where similar technicalities did not justify exclusion and granted relief to the petitioner based on the violation of constitutional rights.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Staff Nurse in the Backward Class category, noting that she obtained more marks than the last selected candidate in that category. The respondents were also directed to provide notional service benefits to the petitioner.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the merit list of the candidates belonging to Backward Class category and appoint her as Staff Nurse as the candidates lower in merit have been appointed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that total 602 posts of Staff Nurses were advertised on 3.8.2011 in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. In response to said advertisement, petitioner applied in the Backward Class category. Selection to the said posts was to be made on the basis of marks of written test as well as the marks for higher qualification and experience. Petitioner appeared in the written test and obtained 47.20 marks. Thereafter, counseling was held on different dates from 18.1.2012 to 28.03.2012. After counseling, the merit list was published wherein the petitioner was shown to have obtained 53.2 marks. Final merit list of candidates belonging to Backward Class category was displayed on the web site of respondents no. 1 and 2, wherein the name of the petitioner was not mentioned.
3. As per case of the petitioner, she obtained 53.2 marks, whereas, names of the candidates, who got upto 51.2 marks, were mentioned in the merit list. Petitioner made a representation and met the respondent-Authorities for inclusion of her name but no satisfactory response was given in writing. Simply, it was informed that her name is mentioned in the Backward Category certificate as wife of Sukhjinder Singh instead of daughter of Sawinder Singh and for that reason, her name was not mentioned in the merit list.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claim of the petitioner has not been considered for invalid reason as petitioner belongs to Backward Class category by birth and certificate in this regard was also submitted wherein she was mentioned as wife of Sukhjinder Singh instead of daughter of Sawinder Singh. Petitioner married to Sukhjinder Singh in the State of Punjab, who belongs to Backward Class category, still, her request was not accepted. Learned counsel also submits that it is not the case of the respondents that petitioner does not belong to Backward Class category or she was married to a person who does not belong to Backward Class category. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by decisions of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2998 of 2013 titled as Baljeet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 22.5.2013 and CWP No. 13800 of 2008 titled as Komal vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 23.4.2009.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also submits that the certificate of Backward Class category produced by the petitioner was not found in accordance with the Instructions dated 5.12.1996 issued by Department of Welfare (Reservation Cell) Government of Punjab. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the SC/BC category certificate should be in accordance with the Instructions issued by the Department of Welfare wherein the candidate is required to mention the name of his/her father. But in the case of the petitioner, her husband's name was mentioned instead of her father and, therefore, her name was not considered in the list of successful candidates.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents-State and have also perused the documents available on the file.
7. Admittedly, petitioner applied for the post of Staff Nurse as she was fulfilling the conditions for appointment to the said post. It is also not disputed that the petitioner belongs to Backward Class category by birth and she has also married to a person who belongs to Backward Class category. The claim of the petitioner has not been considered only on the ground that she ha
