Sunil Kumar vs State of Haryana

K. Kannan, J.—The petitioner who had responded to the placement as Post Graduate Teacher for schools in Haryana applied for consideration of his candidature as ex-serviceman''s dependent. The last date for filing the application with the eligibility certificate was on 28.06.2012 and the petitioner who had an eligibility certificate issued by the Sainik Board also furnished the said document. An interview was said to have been held subsequently on 04.01.2013 and the result was declared on 03.04.2013 when he was declared as selected.

In the meanwhile, it appears that the petitioner had availed of the very same eligibility certificate and claimed an appointment in yet another establishment as a Clerk-cum-Junior Data Operator in Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak on 05.11.2012. Admittedly, the appointment that was secured was in the category of an ex-serviceman dependent. Subsequently, after the results were announced when he was to join, he was required to produce the eligibility certificate again and the petitioner appears to have applied to the Zila Sainik Board which rejected his claim on the ground that in terms of the policy of the Haryana Government, an ex-serviceman''s dependent who was working in a Government department and asked for fresh eligibility certificate for a higher post will not be issued a dependent certificate again. The denial of certificate was, therefore, made on the ground that the petitioner who had used the eligibility certificate to claim appointment elsewhere cannot be favoured with yet another certificate.

The petitioner has two contentions to make viz; one, the eligibility to a post must be considered only with reference to the date when the appointment is sought as per the conditions of advertisement which in this case was the last date when the application was required to be filed on 28.06.2012. There was no disqualification in his status as a dependent of ex-serviceman which was available through the eligibility certificate produced. Although he could not secure afresh eligibility certificate, even the certificate which had been submitted to the respondent itself bore an endorsement from the Secretary, Zila Board that it was renewed and valid till 07.01.2014. Two, since the interview was held on 04.01.2013 and the results of selection had also been announced on 03.04.2013 earlier before the expiry of eligibility certificate, the subsequent inability to produce a fresh certificate in the manner demanded is inconsequential.

The counsel would refer me to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others, where the Court was considering the issue of selection of University teachers. The selection committee was required to take into consideration the requisite qualification as on the date of selection rather than the last date of preferring the applications. This judgment is sought to be used to this situation that the eligibility on the date of application alone was to be considered. I would find this reference as wholly inappropriate, for, in this case we have a government notification which renders ineffective an eligibility certificate if a candidate has already applied under such a category and secured an appointment elsewhere and seeks for better prospects in yet another establishment making use of the same certificate. The reliance on this judgment, therefore, cannot apply to our case.

Learned counsel also refers to a decision in Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, The said case refers to the date that is relevant for assessing the eligibility of a candidate for appointment. In that case, the petitioner was holding a post in the scale of Rs. 1500-2065 earlier and the State Government revised it to Rs. 2070-3550 whereas the Central Government revised the scale of Rs. 1500-2000 to Rs. 3700-5000. It was the contention that having regard to the nature of duties, qualifications and experience, the post held by him should be treated as equivalent to the post in the scale of Rs. 1500-2000. The Tribunal before which the case was brought did not actually consider the equivalence in the scale as contended by the appellant but rejected his candidature on a consideration that a rival candidate was also equally qualified and eligible for said post. The Supreme Court noted that the rival candidate himself had admitted that he was not eligible for the post but was asking for relaxation to make him eligible. In that context, the Court held that denial of appointment to the person was not appropriate. It does not really deal with the situation that is confronting us in this case.

In yet another judgment cited in Rajesh Kumar Vs. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak 2011(1) RSJ 518, 4 posts had been advertised by the University for Lecturer in Microbiology. The petitioner was at the time of making application only a Post Graduate in Microbiology and he submitted his thesis for Ph.D. degree. He produced a provisional Ph.D. certificate but this was not accepted by the University and denied him selection. The Court held that if the eligibility of a candidate was to be examined, it shall be on the date which is specified by the Rules. If there was no rule prescribing the date of eligibility, the cut off date specified in the advertisement would be the date of eligibility. The Court further observed that if there was no cut off date in advertisement in determining the eligibility, the last date of receipt of application had to be considered as a cut off date to determine such eligibility. The Court found that the petitioner was not possessed of the requisite qualification of eligibility, for, the petitioner was not possessed of the requisite qualification of Ph.D. degree to his credit on the last date from making his application and hence, became ineligible and correctly denied the appointment.

I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner''s eligibility would normally require to be considered on the date when the advertisement published as the last date when the application was to be filled and submitted. In this case, the eligibility loses force by yet another event of the petitioner securing appointment in another University by utilizing the same certificate in claiming the right to the post in a reserved quota meant for dependent of ex-serviceman. The employer could not be taken to be unjustified in seeking for the eligibility certificate at the time of his appointment for the eligibility is bound to subsist till the time when the appointment is actually taken. In each one of the cases which the Supreme Court or the High Court was dealing was a situation where even if there was no eligibility initially, the consideration had been whether the eligibility obtained subsequently at the time of appointment would become relevant. In this case, it is the reverse that has happened that a person who had eligibility at the time of his application did not have the eligibility at the time of his actual appointment as per the State declared policy. That would be good enough reason to deny appointment to a reserved category. I find no error in the order passed and I decline to make any intervention in the favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition is dismissed.