The main legal point established in the judgment is that improvement of marks can relate back to the date of the examination in which the score was improved, and should be considered for appointment eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

1. The State Government and its functionaries always complain that pendency in Courts is on the rise and that steps need to be taken to reduce the same. The blame is laid at the doorstep of the Judiciary, without realising, that pendency in Courts is contributed to the maximum level by its own actions. In the present case, there is a binding precedent of a Division Bench of this Court, covering the question of law arising in the present petition, however, the same has been ignored. Had the ratio of the binding precedent been taken into consideration, filing of this writ petition could have been obviated.

2. The question of law which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether upon improvement of marks of a particular qualification, the same shall relate back to the date of acquiring the said qualification or not? If yes, whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar?

3. The facts are not in dispute and are briefly enumerated hereinafter. The Haryana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) advertised 70 posts of Naib Tehsildar vide advertisement dated 23.07.2015. Closing date for submission of online applications was 22.08.2015. For some reason, the process of appointment could not be completed and thus corrigendum dated 01.05.2018 was issued. The closing date for submission of online applications was disclosed as 15.05.2018 and eligibility with regard to qualifications and other conditions of eligibility was to be determined as on last date of submission of online application forms. Age was to be reckoned as on 01.01.2018. Essential qualifications for the post mentioned in the advertisement published on 23.07.2015 were:

(a) Graduate of a recognised University.

(b) Knowledge of Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard or higher.

4. Being eligible in all respects, the petitioner submitted his application and was invited for the recruitment test held on 26.05.2019. Thereafter, the Haryana School Education Board issued a press note, sometime in June 2019, providing a golden chance to students who had passed their Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination between March 2001 to September 2008, for improving their marks in one subject. The petitioner applied and appeared in the examination held between 18.06.2019 and 28.06.2019. Result was declared in August 2019 and the petitioner improved his marks in English in the Secondary Examination as also the marks of the same subject in the Senior Secondary Examination. Consequently, in both the said examinations, he scored more than 60% marks. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was invited to appear for the interview on 14.08.2019. He did so along with the result of the Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination, revised after improvement of marks in the English subject. The said result was addressed to the Secretary of the Commission and was produced in a sealed cover along with application of the petitioner dated 14.08.2019, in which it was prayed that the result may be prepared after taking into consideration the revised marks of the Secondary/Senior Secondary Examination. Result was declared on 16.08.2019 and the petitioner was unsuccessful. The last selected candidate secured 78.46 marks and he has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner sought information vide request dated 29.08.2019, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 2005 Act) and he was informed that the criteria for the interviews had been fixed just before the date of interviews. He also sought for details of the marks obtained by him in the interview and the same were provided to him. He scored a total of 77.75 marks. From the detailed breakdown provided by the Commission, it becomes evident that out of the total marks stipulated for the interview, maximum 7 marks each were provided for the percentage of marks obtained in the Secondary Exa