IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

271

CWP-9600-2021

DATE OF DECISION: 05.08.2022

SWATI

& Petitioner(s)

Versus

HARYANA STAFF SELCTION COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:

Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with

Mr. S.S.Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.3.

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has impugned the result declared by the

respondents for the post of Lower Division Clerk on 30.04.2021. She has also

sought a direction to consider and select the petitioner as she is more

meritorious than the last selected candidate in the general category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in EWS category in pursuance to

the advertisement issued by the respondents on 05.07.2019. The petitioner had

secured 89 marks in the written examination and has erroneously not being

awarded 5 marks under the socio economic criteria. The petitioner had

submitted the EWS certificate along with the application form and had later

submitted a fresh certificate at the time of the scrutiny. If the petitioner had

been awarded 5 marks on account of socio economic criteria then she would

have 94 marks which are more than the marks secured by the last selected

candidate in the general category. The last selected candidate in the general

AMIT KAUNDAL

2022.08.10 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-9600-2021

2

category has secured 93 marks while the last selected in the EWS category has

secured 90 marks.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 in response to the order

passed by this Court on 09.05.2022 has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated

that 2 posts in the EWS category are vacant and there is no post in the general

category which is vacant at present.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that the certificate

which the petitioner has appended with the application form was valid for

only one year and the petitioner at the time of scrutiny did not present the

original of that certificate although she had presented another certificate which

was issued after the last date of the submission of application form. He also

states that as per Condition 3.2 of the advertisement the candidates who had

submitted the certificates along with the application form were required to

submit the original thereof at the time of scrutiny.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent

No.3 is the last selected candidate in the EWS category having secured 90

marks and in case the writ petition has to be allowed the candidates who have

been selected in the EWS category who are having the merit to qualify in the

general category should be shifted to the general category and the seats which

fall vacant in the EWS category as a result thereof be offered to the petitioner.

Respondent No.3 having been appointed in the year 2021 and found to be

meritorious in the EWS category should not be disturbed. In support of his

submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

AMIT KAUNDAL

2022.08.10 17:10

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-9600-2021

3

of R.K. Sabharwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others reported as

1995 (2) SCC 745.

Heard.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk

under the EWS category. She had secured 89 marks while the last selected

candidate in this category has secured 90 marks. It is stipulated in the

advertisement that the candidate would be entitled to 5 marks on account of

socio economic criteria if no m