IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
Manoj Lamba & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission – Respondent
CWP-21728 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-06-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal eligibility based on qualifications and application process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on eligibility qualifications and certification. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's examination of established qualifications and requirements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. determination of qualifications and expertise in judicial review. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final ruling on eligibility for post and directives. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J.
The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing notice dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P-15), wherein the petitioners have not been called for the interview and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners eligible for the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector.
2. In brief, the facts as stated are that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 126 posts of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector vide advertisement dated 7/2015 dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure P-1) under category No.17. The petitioners herein, being fully eligible, applied for the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector. Petitioner No.1 applied under General Category. Petitioner No.2 applied under BCB Category. Petitioners No.3 and 4 applied under ESM (General) category and petitioner No.5 applied under EBPG Category. The petitioners herein qualified the written examination and were called for scrutiny of documents but were not called for interview on the ground that their diplomas in Computer Education were not recognized by HARTRON/DOECC etc. and were declared ineligible for the said post. Petitioner No.1, being a General Category candidate, has secured total 164 marks and the last selected candidate under the said category has secured 154 marks. Petitioner No.2, being a BCB Category candidate, has secured total 149 marks and the last person selected under the said category has secured 147 marks. Petitioners No.3 and 4, being ESM General Category candidates, have secured total 105 marks and 102 marks respectively and the last person selected in their category has secured 101 marks. Petitioner No.5, being a EBPG Category candidate has secured total 149 marks and she was topper in her category. The entire grievance of the petitioners is that having obtained the necessary marks, they ought to be offered appointment by considering their Computer Courses as valid.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are fully eligible to be appointed for the post of Mandi Supervisor- cum-Fee Collector and despite having sufficient marks, they have not been selected for the said post. They would argue that as per the advertisement issued, the essential qualification for the said post was Graduation with 55% marks from a recognized University or its equivalent with six months' certificate in computer from a recognized Institution and Hindi/Sanskrit up to Matric Standard or higher education. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 has done B.Com from Panjab University, Chandigarh and has obtained one year Diploma in Software Computer Management from J2K Infosys Education & Welfare Society, Bhiwani in June, 2015, which is registered by the Government of Haryana. Petitioner No.2 has done his B.Com from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and has obtained one year Diploma in Computers from Nice Computer Academy. Petitioner No.3 has obtained his Diploma in Computer Application issued by Rajeev Gandhi Computer Saksharta Mission, which is an autonomous institute of HTCRGCSM Education Pvt. Ltd., registered under Company Act, 1956 by Government of India. Petitioner No.4 has also done his Diploma in Computer Application from All India Computer Saksharta Mission, which is an autonomous institution registered under Government of India, SCT, New Delhi. Petitioner No.5 has done her B.Com from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and has obtained
Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309
Rishal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (2018) 8 SCC 81
U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman v. Rahul Singh
The court upheld the essential qualification for the post of Additional Private Secretary in Uttarakhand and dismissed the petitioners' claim of vagueness in the essential qualification and their del....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of eligibility on the cut-off date and the principle of estoppel in relation to the eligibility criteria for government appointments....
Candidates cannot challenge recruitment criteria after participating in the selection process, as estoppel applies. Eligibility is determined by the employer based on stated qualifications within the....
The court affirmed that the equivalence of educational qualifications is a matter of State determination, limiting judicial review, while ensuring that unfilled vacancies warrant reconsideration of c....
The Court held that the non-production of a certificate or proof of eligibility at the time of document verification does not necessarily disqualify a candidate if the candidate is otherwise eligible....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.