Neelam Kumari and Others vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

Ranjit Singh, J.—On 20.7.2006, certain posts were advertised in the Education Department for different categories. 816 posts so advertised were for Arts and Crafts Teacher and the closing date for receipt of the application was 21.8.2006. The said advertisement was challenged through writ petition No. 16214/2008 on the ground that age was reduced from 18 years to 17 years on the basis of an order passed by this Court. On 24.11.2008, a corrigendum was issued inviting fresh applications for determining the eligibility against the aforesaid advertisement. The candidates, who could not earlier make applications, were given fresh opportunity to make such application up to 10.12.2008. The candidates, who had already applied and their applications had been rejected on the aforesaid ground, were not required to make fresh applications and their earlier applications were considered valid. Rest of the terms and conditions as advertised on 21.8.2006, were kept as it is.

The Petitioners had already applied for the said posts. The Respondent had issued interview letters and roll numbers to Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for the purpose of conducting interview on 11.8.2008. Candidature of Petitioner No. 4 was rejected. The reference is made to some other writ petitions, where the challenge is made to the cut off date as having been provided as 10.12.2008 instead of earlier date which was 21.8.2006. Submission is that the Respondent has not changed the cut off date through the corrigendum as issued. The plea is that eligible candidates have not been interviewed as per order passed in CWP No. 210 of 2009 and selection list has been declared. It is, accordingly, pleaded that the selection list would be null and void due to the violation of the orders passed by this Court.

In reply filed, the Respondents have mentioned that all the Petitioners were called for interview and have been assessed. None of them was able to make grade. The marks obtained by the Petitioners and that of the last selected candidate in their respective categories are disclosed showing that the Petitioners have scored much less marks than the last selected candidate in respective categories. Details in this regard have been reflected in the reply and are as under:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S. No. Name/Roll No. Cat. Marks Marks of last obtained selected candidate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Neelam Kumari, R. No. 3659 Gen (female) 49.07 55.04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Raj Rani, R. No. 2475 Gen -do- (female) 50.14 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Rekha Rani, R. No. 970 -do- 47.52 -do- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Neha Sharma, R. No. 4876 -do- 42.40 55.04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Poonam Devi, R. No. 7601 -do- 47.39 -do- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Hitesh Kumar, R. No. 4911 Gen. 45.85 56.35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Susheel, R. No. 4303 Gen (female) 47.05 55.04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Bhagwati, R. No. 4212 absent - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Brijesh, R. No. 8978 Gen. 43.51 56.35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Zile Singh, R. No. 9108 Gen. 39.68 56.35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11. Sapna, R. No. 7299 Absent - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12. Pooja Sharma, R. No. 10362 - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13. Kavita, R. No. 9957 Absent - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14. Ankit Gupta, R. No. 10361 Gen. 43.87 56.35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15. Mahesh Kumar, R. No. 3999 Gen. 49.83 -do- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16. Sindhu, R. No. 327 BC-B(F) 49.15 53.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17. Reema, R. No. 3640 Gen (F) 47.85 55.04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Since the Petitioners have been considered and found not meritorious enough for being appointed, no occasion would arise to go into challenge made to the selection.

The present writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is so ordered.

At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition. This prayer is also declined.