Manjita vs State of Haryana

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner appeared in the Diploma in Education 2nd Year examination in October 2012. She was inflicted punishment debarring her from appearing in the examination for use of unfair means in one paper. She approached this Court through C.W.P. No. 1867 of 2012 against the order of the unfair means committee and the appellate order dated 27.09.2011 rejecting the appeal and affirming the penalty. In the aforesaid writ petition, I took a view that the word ''Examination'' was not defined. The petitioner had appeared in two Papers prior to Paper Three in which her conduct was faulted. I held that the petitioner could be only subjected to clear the paper in which she was caught using unfair means but not be compelled to repeat the entire 2nd year examination. However, the Board carried in intra Court appeal in which the following order was passed by the Division Bench on 02.08.2012:-

Heard.

Admitted.

Operation of impugned order is stayed, subject to the condition that a special examination for respondents No. 1 to 6 will be held by the appellant-Board within three months with regard to all the papers of second year of Diploma in Education and they be permitted to appear in the said examination. If respondents No. 1 to 6 appear in the said examination, their result be declared.

To be listed for regular hearing within six months.

As a result of the interim orders passed in appeal, the petitioner appeared in the special examination conducted on Court directions. On 26.09.2013 the following order was passed in LPA No. 497 of 2012:-

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appeal has effectively become infructuous in view of the interim order dated 02.08.2012, in terms whereof, respondents No. 1 to 6 were permitted to take a special examination, which was accordingly held and all the six passed. The result also stands notified.

The appeal is thus, disposed of as infructuous.

The matter had been rendered infructuous on account of the petitioner having passed all the six papers in the said examination.

The petitioner is now before this Court with a grievance that she has been held ineligible to appear in the selection process of recruitment of JBT Teachers in terms of advertisement No. 2/2012. The cut off date for determining eligibility as fixed in the advertisement was 08.12.2012. On 08.12.2012 the petitioner had not qualified the examination since the special examination was held in October 2012 and its result declared in June 2013. Passing an examination after the disability was removed either through use of unfair means or earning a compartment or if the part of the examination is to be repeated on account of fault of the student, the result may relate back to the date of examination. However, in direct recruitment to public posts under the State, the doctrine of relation back cannot be stretched too far as time schedules and cut off dates fixed in advertisements would be disturbed which sacrosanct and meant to be adhered to, so that direct recruitment may come to an end and may not be kept open for the doctrine of relation back to come in aid or as a result of litigation and orders passed by courts removing obstructions wrongly placed in the way of a student.

Therefore, indisputably on the cut off date i.e. 08.12.2012 the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post as she did not hold the B.Ed. degree. It cannot therefore be said that the action of the respondents in declaring her ineligible is illegal or unlawful.

For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.