Back
HSSC cannot deny age relaxation for paying fee despite exemption:
In a significant ruling that underscores the primacy of merit over technicalities, the has set aside the Haryana Staff Selection Commission's (HSSC) rejection of three TGT (Sanskrit) candidates who were denied the benefit of promised age relaxation solely because they had paid the application fee despite being expressly exempted from it. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over three connected writ petitions, delivered a common order on , holding that a candidate cannot be penalised for an act of diligence.
The case arose from a recruitment saga that began in when the HSSC first advertised for TGT (Sanskrit) posts. Two successive advertisements (No.7 of and No.2 of ) were cancelled for reasons not attributable to the applicants. When a fresh advertisement (No.2 of ) was issued, Clause 11 specifically provided that candidates who had applied against the cancelled advertisement would be granted relaxation in age, HTET eligibility, and exemption from the application fee—provided they applied afresh with proof of their earlier fee payment.
The petitioners—Nirmala Devi, Somwati, and Samsher Singh—had applied under the cancelled advertisements and were allotted unique IDs recognising their earlier candidature. They applied again under the advertisement and cleared the written exam, scoring higher than the last selected candidates in their respective categories. Yet, they were excluded from the final result on the ground of being overage. The Commission's stated reason: since the petitioners had paid the nominal application fee (₹150 for males, ₹75 for females) instead of availing the fee exemption, they could not claim the accompanying age relaxation either.
The petitioners contended that the online portal had no drop-down option to indicate their exempted status, and they had paid the fee purely as a precautionary measure given the troubled history of this recruitment. The Commission argued that having paid the fee meant to be waived, the petitioners forfeited their claim to the accompanying age relaxation.
Justice Brar framed the central question as
"whether a candidate can be denied the concession of relaxation in age... merely for not availing the additional concession of exemption from payment of the application fee."
Answering in the negative, the court observed that the Commission had effectively created a
"
"
—that if the fee is waived and you pay it anyway, you are ineligible.
The court noted that the Commission itself admitted through an affidavit that unique IDs were generated exclusively for candidates found eligible on account of their earlier applications under the cancelled advertisements.
"A more befitting example of
might be hard to find,"
the court remarked, pointing out that the portal accepted their applications despite their being technically overage under Clause 6, which could only be explained by the relaxation under Clause 11 having been applied.
Key Observations
"Metamorphosis of diligence into disqualification is a rather cruel irony, not lost upon this Court."
"Of all the reasons to deny consideration to a candidate, certainly, being meticulous ought to be the most tragic."
"It seems that the respondent-Commission needs a gentle reminder that it is not an ordinary fee-collecting agency but bears the responsibility to conduct merit-based recruitment to public service in a manner that is fair and non-arbitrary."
The court was critical of the Commission's admission that its portal was "neither designed nor programmed" to reconcile a candidate's relaxation claim with fee payment, holding that
"digitization in itself does not render a process efficient"
and that the Commission
"has modernized the application process in namesake only."
Allowing all three petitions, the court set aside the impugned result and corrigendum dated , to the extent they excluded the petitioners from selection. It directed the competent authority to pass appropriate orders within two months, considering the petitioners' candidature strictly on merit subject to fulfilling all other eligibility conditions. The petitioners are entitled to consequential and notional benefits from the date their batch-mates joined, though actual monetary benefits will accrue only from their respective dates of joining.
