IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.01.2025 PREETI GOEL ….PETITIONER Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)

1. Additional affidavit of Pawan Singh, Under Secretary filed on behalf of Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No. 2 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider her for the post of Upper Divisional Clerk with Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short ‘DHBVNL’).

3. The respondent No. 2-Haryana Staff Selection Commission vide Advertisement No. 3/16 advertised 447 posts of Upper Divisional Clerk. 217 posts were earmarked for Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short ‘UHBVNL) and 230 for Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short ‘DHBVNL’).

Essential qualification was prescribed in the advertisement.

4. The essential qualification prescribed for the post reads as:-

“Upper Division Clerk:

a) Bachelor Degree in Commerce with atleast 60% marks for general category and 55% marks for SC category candidates of Haryana Domicile from any University recognized by the Government of Haryana. The percentage of marks required for BC, ESM, OSP & PHC would be same as for General Category candidates.

b) Must have passed Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard.

c) 'O' level course or above of Computer for a minimum period of one year form NIELIT (DOEACC Society) or HARTRON.”

5. The petitioner pursuant to aforesaid advertisement applied for the post of Upper Divisional Clerk. Though she at the time of filing application was not possessing ‘O’ level course or above of Computer from NIELIT or HARTRON, yet, she was having ‘O’ level certificate issued by another organization. She secured 120 marks in written test and interview and last selected candidate secured 118 marks. The respondent issued selection list wherein name of petitioner did not figure. The candidature of petitioner was not considered because she at the time of application was not possessing ‘O’ level course or above from NIELIT or HARTRON.

6. Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate submits that petitioner was possessing ‘O’ level certificate issued by an organization other than NIELIT or HARTRON at the time of filing application. The requirement of filing/possessing ‘O’ level certificate stands deleted in view of judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed by Single Judge of this Court in CWP-6454-2017 titled as ‘Sarita Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another’ read with order dated 04.12.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA-2310-2017 titled as ‘Shikha and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’. Learned Advocate General made statement before Division Bench of this Court that appointment of candidates shall be made as per qualification prescribed in the statutory Rules governing services in UHBVNL and DHBVNL.

The petitioner was possessing ‘O’ level certificate as per statutory Rules, though, she was not possessing as per advertisement. The posts are still lying vacant with DHBVNL, thus, claim of petitioner should be considered.

7. Per contra, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana submits that petitioner at the time of filing application was not possessing ‘O’ level certificate as prescribed in the advertisement. She at the time of scrutiny of documents/interview did not submit ‘O’ level certificate issued by an organization other than NIELIT or HARTRON. Thus, her candidature was rightly rejected. She cannot take benefit of statement made by learned Advocate General before Division Bench of this Court. The case of respondent is squarely covered by judgment dated 29.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-23079-2021 titled as ‘Vikas Vs. The State of Haryana and others’.

8. I have heard the arguments