Sajjan Singh vs Haryana Public Service Commission

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Haryana Public Service Commission respondent No. 1 to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in History. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that initially an advertisement was issued by the respondents, calling upon the candidates to apply for the post of Lecturer School Cadre (History). In the advertisement dated 18.06.2009, the eligibility criteria was mentioned, as per which the candidates who have passed School Teacher Eligibility Test (for short, "the STET"), which had been conducted in December 2009, could apply for the post. Thereafter a corrigendum was issued and last date of submission of applications was extended upto 31.05.2010.

The petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 9321 of 2010, stating therein that he has obtained 199.25 marks in the STET 2009 test conducted by the Haryana School Education Board (for short, "the Board") and he is entitled to and eligible for applying for the post as his total marks would come to 200.50 if the marks, which have been wrongly denied to him in the test, are included.

While issuing notice of motion, a direction was issued to the respondent-Commission to accept the application of the petitioner and to consider his candidature.

The reply to the writ petition was filed and on the basis of the reply filed, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous on 28.05.2010, when the Board accepted mistake on its part and granted the requisite marks to the petitioner, which resulted in his passing the STET December 2009 test with 200.50 marks, making him eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre). The candidature of the petitioner, however, was rejected by the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission") on the ground that prior to the cut off date for receipt of applications i.e. 31.05.2010, the petitioner had not passed the STET December 2009 examination and the certificate was dated 31.8.2010, Annexure P-1.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that this action of the Commission is not sustainable as the correction in the marks of the petitioner in the STET December 2009 examination would relate back to the initial declaration of the result, which would entitle the petitioner to be considered for appointment for the post in question.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Commission contends that the cut off date i.e. 31.05.2010 is sacrosanct and any certificate, which is issued subsequent thereto, could not have been taken into consideration. The petitioner has submitted the certificate dated 31.08.2010, which is after the last date of receipt of application, rendering the petitioner ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Lecturer School Cadre. In support of this contention, reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgement of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1643 of 2011 (Vijender Kumar v. State of Haryana and others), decided on 07.09.2011 (Annexure R-l).

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

The facts are not in dispute and, therefore, are not being again recorded here.

The question, which requires consideration and adjudication is whether the certificate dated 31.08.2010, declaring the petitioner qualified in the STET, Lecturer category/cadre in the subject of History, which test was held in December 2009, where the petitioner was declared to have not passed the test on the ground that he had obtained 199.25 marks instead of required eligibility minimum marks of 200 and the correction in the total marks of the petitioner on the basis of re-evaluation of his paper, which comes to 200.50 marks, would relate back to the initial date of declaration of the result of said test or not?

The answer to this is obvious that it would relate back to the original date of declaration of result as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the act and omission on the part of the Board, which was required to check the papers consciously and correctly. If there was mistake on the part of the Board, the candidate cannot be made to lose his claim for consideration.

The stand of the Commission that the petitioner passed the STET examination on 31.08.2010 cannot be accepted as this certificate is only a declaration to the effect that the petitioner has been declared pass in the test held in December 2009, securing 200.50 marks out of 400 marks which would make him eligible for consideration for the post. Merely because the date of issuance of certificate has been mentioned as 31.08.2010, would not make any difference as it was after re-evaluation. In the present case, the result of the petitioner would relate back to the original date of declaration of result and the benefit, which accrues to the petitioner because of that, cannot be denied to him by taking an objection of the nature as has been sought to be projected by the Commission.

It may also be mentioned here that the condition of eligibility even as per advertisement is that the candidate should have passed the STET for Lecturers conducted by the Haryana Education Board, Bhiwani, in the month of December 2009 and the certificate dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) declares petitioner as pass which reads as follows:--

"Serial No. c 033711 Roll No. 3112566

Board of School Education Haryana, Bhiwani

ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED

SCHOOL TEACHERS ELIGIBILITY TEST CERTIFICATE

Category: Lecturer

Certified that Mr./Mrs./Ms. Sajjan Singh S/o. d/o. W/o. Sh. Ram Singh belonging to General category from Fatehabad has qualified The School Teachers Eligibility Test for Lecturer Category/Cadre of the subject of History held in December 2009 by securing 200.50 out of 400 marks.

Bhiwani

Dated: August 31, 2010

Sd/- Secretary"

This leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner is eligible for consideration for the post of Lecturer School Cadre.

Reliance upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Vijender Kumar''s case (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, the result of the candidate was declared on 15.05.2010 whereas the last date of submission of the applications was 17.07.2009. That was primarily the ground, which had resulted in passing of the order by the Division Bench. The said judgement would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned information, which has been supplied to the petitioner vide communication dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P-6) cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for rejecting the candidate of the petitioner. Direction is, thus, issued to the Commission-respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner eligible and proceed further with the process of selection for the post advertised. The needful be done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition accordingly stands allowed.