Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(P&H) 1433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
Priyanka and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP 27021 of 2016, 192, 602, 958, 1129, 1130, 1263, 1628, 1788, 2874, 2963, 4884, 4889, 5239, 5300, 8162, 9938, 10355, 17047, 22414, 22429, 22613, 23135 of 2017
Decided On : 23-10-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitionera:Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tejpal Dhull, Advocate, Mr. B.S. Rana, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gagandeep Rana, Advocate, Mr. Gobind Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate, Mr. Ramesh Malik, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, Mr. Sant Lal Barwala, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Girdhwal, Advocate, Mr. Lekh Raj Nandal, Advocate, Mr. Raj Kumar Chandana, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate, Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate, Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, Mr. D. R. Bansal, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Hooda, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate, Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, Mr. Rajinder S. Rana, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that examination results disclosed confidentially by the University to the petitioners prior to the cut-off date were validly declared, and the provision for applying for a confidential result was existent in all Universities. The court also emphasized that the cut-off date being sacrosanct, the results declared in a confidential manner prior to the cut-off date did not violate the sanctity of that date.

Headnote:
Eligibility - Appointment of Post Graduate Teachers (Mathematics) - University Calendar, 2005, Clauses 29, 30, and 37 - The court held that the results disclosed confidentially by the University to the petitioners prior to the cut-off date were validly declared, and the provision for applying for a confidential result was existent in all Universities. The court also found that the cut-off date being sacrosanct, the results declared in a confidential manner prior to the cut-off date did not violate the sanctity of that date.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought eligibility for appointment as Post Graduate Teachers (Mathematics) based on examination results not officially declared by the University by the cut-off date. The University had disclosed the results confidentially to the petitioners before the cut-off date.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the results disclosed confidentially by the University to the petitioners prior to the cut-off date were validly declared, and the provision for applying for a confidential result was existent in all Universities. The court also held that the cut-off date being sacrosanct, the results declared in a confidential manner prior to the cut-off date did not violate the sanctity of that date.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be considered eligible for appointment based on examination results not officially declared by the University by the cut-off date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the validity of the results disclosed confidentially by the University to the petitioners prior to the cut-off date and the existence of the provision for applying for a confidential result in all Universities. The court also considered that the cut-off date being sacrosanct, the results declared in a confidential manner prior to the cut-off date did not violate the sanctity of that date.
Final Decision: The petitions were allowed, and the respondent Commission was directed to interview the petitioners if they otherwise came within the zone of selection as per the marks obtained by the last candidate in each category in which the petitioners had applied, provided that the result in the case of each petitioner was disclosed by the respondent University prior to the cut-off date.

JUDGMENT :

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

The controversy in these petitions is as to whether the petitioners can be declared eligible for being considered for appointment to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers (Mathematics), in view of the fact that the results of the examinations for the degrees they were to obtain to make them eligible for the said posts, were not declared officially by the University concerned by the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement inviting applications, i.e. 12.10.2015.

The contention of the petitioners is that they had, however, all obtained the result confidentially from the respondent University, i.e. the Maharshi Dayanand University, upon making an application to that effect before the University and as per the said results, they all passed the examinations which made them eligible for being considered as candidates for the posts in question.

2. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP no.27021 of 2016, has referred to certificates issued by the University in respect of all the petitioners in CWP no.27021 of 2016 (Annexure P-13 to P-21), by which the University has certified that the petitioners had passed the B.Ed. examinations held in July 2015, with the result already issued to each petitioner on the different dates given in each certificate.

Mr. Malik points out that the said dates are all of September 2015, i.e. obviously before 12.10.2015.

It is contended by learned counsel appearing in the other petitions also, that the petitioners having admittedly filled in their forms prior to the cut off the date and they having disclosed the result therein as was communicated by the University to them confidentially, obviously the results were declared qua each petitioner prior to 12.10.2015.

3. The following judgments are referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of their contentions:-

“1. Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan, 1993 (2) S.C.T. 279

2. Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 2 SCC 18

3. Shashi Bala vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (3) S.C.T. 94

4. Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54

5. Ajay Sondhi vs. Punjabi University, Patiala and others, 2005 (3) S.C.T. 592

6. Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 58”

4. Learned counsel for the State as also for respondents no.6 to 14 in CWP no.27021 of 2016, for respondent no.4 in CWP no.1130 of 2017 and for respondents no. 3 to 5 in CWP no.27021 of 2016, have opposed the aforesaid contentions, essentially arguing that, firstly, the result not having been declared by the University, by way of publication, it is not an officially declared result and therefore cannot be taken into consideration to hold the petitioners eligible to be appointed to the posts in question.

Learned counsel for the State as also for the private respondents have also relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court (as also of other Courts), to submit that the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement being a sacrosanct date, this Court would not hold the petitioners to be eligible, with the result not officially declared by the University by that date.

The following judgments have been referred to by the learned State counsel :-

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. N. Subbarayudu and others, (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 702

2. Jyoti Rani vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (2) S.C.T. 105

3. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari vs. Jharkhand Academic Council, Namkum, Ranchi, 2016(4) AIR Jhar R.249.

4. Kabal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 1997(3) SLR 2

5. A.P.Public Service Commission vs. B.Sarat Chandra, (1990)2 SCC 669

6. R.Muthuselvi vs. The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Frazer Bridge Road, 2017 (1) C.W.C. 444

7. Jiura Oraon vs. The State of Jharkhand and others, 2013(21) S.C.T. 522

8. Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 58

9. A.P.Public Service Commission vs. B.Sarat Chandra, 1990(2) SCC

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(P&H) 1433

Cases Referred (5)