Eligibility for recruitment benefits, such as non-employment marks, must be assessed based on the candidate's status on the date of application. Subsequent changes in marital status do not disqualify a candidate from benefits they were entitled to at the time of applying.

________________________________________________________

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“A. That the impugned waiting panel list (Annexure P-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside, qua the present petitioner and to declare the petitioner entitled for grant of one additional mark for non-employment certificate for selectin to the post of Steno-Typist under Post Code-836.

B. That the respondents may kindly be directe.d to declare the result of the result of the petitioner based on her merit in written test and documents verification by including one additional mark and further to Hselect her on the basis of waiting panel for the post of Steno-Typist Post Code-836.

C. That the respondeonts may be directed to produce the entire record of the matter.”

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that process was initiated by the respondent-Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, in terms of an Advertisement dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure P-1), for filling up various posts, including 32 posts of Steno-Typist under Post Code No. 786, in the Police Department. Out of these, 17 posts were meant for General (Unreserved) category, 1 for General (WFF), 06 for OBC (Unreserved), H 07 for SC (Unreserved) and 01 for ST (Unreserved). The Mode of Selection was to comprise of a Written Test of 85 marks and then, there was Evaluation of 15 marks, in terms of the description given in the Advertisement. The petitioner before this Court participated in the process. In terms of the result declared on 25.06.2022, she was declared successful in the written test. Thereafter, on 04.07.2022, the petitioner was called for the last stage of selection process, i.e., for document verification for 23rd July, 2022.

The grievance of the petitioner is that one mark, for which she was entitled to on the ground that none of her family members was employed at the time when she applied for the post in question, was denied, on the ground that at the time of verification of certificates, her marital status had changed, i.e.,f to say that during the selection process, the petitioner solemnized marriage on 10.05.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the selection criteria provided in the Advertisement, the Mode of Selection was divided into two Parts. Part-I consisted of Written Test of 85 marks and Part-II consisted of 15 marks, in terms whereof, one mark was to be allotted on the basis of a non-employment certificate, if none of the family members was in Government/Semi Government job. He further drew the attention of the Court to Important Instructions for filling up Online applications and submitted that in terms H of Clause-17 thereof, validity of the certificate was to be seen at the time of evaluation of the certificates for 15 marks. He argued that the eligibility of the petitioner had to be assessed as on the date when she applied for the post in question and the validity of the non-employment certificate was also to be construed in that perspective and the marriage of the petitioner in between could not have rendered her ineligible for grant of one mark. Learned counsel also drew the attention of the Court to Notification dated 14th September, 2022 (Annexure P-6), in terms whereof, the merit of the candidates was prepared, as al.so Annexure P-7, which was the merit of the waiting category. Learned counsel submitted that in the Waiting List, the petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 6 and 54.62 marks have been allotted to her. He submitted that had one mark for belonging to thef family of unemployed been granted to her, then her total marks would have been 55.62 and she would have been in the Waiting List. Learned counsel further submitted that many of the candidates, who had been offered appointments, did not join the post(s) and the petitioner has been arbitrarily denied appointment, to which she was