Dr. Vijender Singh v. Chief Secretary, State of Haryana and Another

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1.      The  appellant  has  preferred  the  instant  appeal  assailing  the order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 03.04.2024, in CWP-1884-2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2.    Learned counsel submits that the appellant had competed for the post  advertised  vide  advertisement  dated  26.02.2021  under  the  reserved handicapped  category,  being  visually  blind.  The  appellant  cleared  the preliminary  examination  and  participated  in  the  written  examination. However, he only secured 35.25% marks in the main written examination and was, therefore, disqualified to participate in the viva-voce in terms of Clause 9(C) Note – 4, appended to the advertisement which requires that no candidate shall be called for viva-voce/personality test unless he/she obtains at  least 45%  marks in the  aggregate of all  written papers and  a score of

[2]

minimum  33% marks each in Hindi (including Hindi essay) in Devnagri script and English (including English essay) papers (compulsory papers).

3.     Learned  State  counsel  referred  to  circular  No.22/106/2018-1GSIII  issued  by  the  Government  of  Haryana,  General  Administration Department, to submit that the Commission ought to have taken recourse to Clause (Q) (i) which provided that if sufficient number of candidates with benchmark disabilities are not available on the basis of general standard to fill  up  all  the  vacancies  reserved  for  them,  candidates  belonging  to  this category  may  be  selected  on  relaxed  standard  to  fill  up  the  remaining vacancies reserved for them provided they are not found unfit for such post or posts. However, this provision shall not be used to allow any relaxation in the eligibility criteria laid down for the issuance of certificate of disability.

4.     Learned  counsel  has  further  invited  attention  to  a  subsequent notification issued by the Personnel Department, Government of Haryana, dated 08.02.2024, which reads as under:-"In exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  the  Governor  of  Haryana hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, namely:-

1.   These  rules  may  be  called  the  Haryana  civil  Service (Executive Branch) Amendment Rules, 2024.

2.  In  the  Haryana  civil  service  (Executive  Branch)  Rules, 2008, in rule 11, in sub-rule (1), in clause (iii), in sub-clause (ii), after  the  words  and  signs  'a  score  of  minimum  thirty-three percent  (33%)  marks  in  English  and  Hindi  language (compulsory  papers)'  the  following  words  and  signs  shall  be 2024.08.29 09:25 inserted, namely:-

[3]

"However, where sufficient number of candidates being persons with benchmark disabilities are not available, the Commission may lower the said limit of 45% marks upto 35% marks."

5.     Learned counsel submits that the provisions which have been enacted vide notification dated 08.02.2024, should be applied retroactively to the concerned selection process which was underway and the appellant ought to be given a chance to participate in the viva-voce.

6.     We have considered the submissions and found that the learned Single  Judge  has  considered  the  condition  for  clearing  the  written examination  for  the  purpose  of  participating  in  the  viva-voce,  as  per  the advertisement, was that the candidates must secure 45% marks. It was further observed  that  once  criteria  has  been  framed,  the  same  has  to  be  applied uniformly qua all the candidates and no departure can be made singularly for the appellant or for visually handicapped persons. Keeping in view thereto, the writ petition has been dismissed.

7.     We find ourselves in concurrence with the reasoning rendered by the learned Single Judge. Additionally, we notice that the appellant did not challenge  condition  of  Clause  9(C)  Note-4  of  the  advertisement  and participated in the selection process without demur. He is, therefore, estopped from  challenging  the  said  condition  having  participated  in  the  selection process accepting the conditions of the advertisement.

8.    So far as the general guidelines issued by the Government of Haryana are concerned and Clause Q(i) as noticed above, suffice it to observe that the same are only guidelines which are not be enforceable and have to be left  open  to  the  appointing  authority  for  consideration  while  issuing

H4I 1PA@133:@/./4 8OB)9

7.    Ee $,(' #$<e n'#e '! n'#i!i"$#i'n d$#ed .F../././4 $nd '-(er3e # $# # e ($id n'#i!i"$#i'n *i,, 'n,%  $3e $ +r'(+e"#i3e e!!e"# $( i# (+e"i!i"$,,% d'e( n'# 0en#i'n #' -e $++,ied 'n +ending (e,e"#i'n(.

1..    In Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs The State of Jammu & Kashmir and others /./3 8:9 S"$,e 3C7& # e S2+retie C'2r# "'n(idered # e en#ire ,$* re,$#ing #' " $,,enge( 0$de #' (e,e"#i'n +r'"e(( $nd  e,d $( 2nder=@

13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after hav-ing been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and re-probate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not with-drawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.

13.2. This Court in Sadananda Halo has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board. In the present case, we are unable to find any mala fide or arbitra-riness in the selection process and therefore the said exception cannot be invoked.

11.    In # e +re(en# "$(e& # ere i( n' $,,eg$#i'n '! mala fide&  en"e& # e *ri# +e#i#i'n *'2,d -e n'# 0$in#$in$-,e. 1/.    In  $  re"en#  j2dgtien#  '!  Sree  Sankaracharya  University  of Sanskrit and others vs Dr. Manu and another /./3 879 S"$,e /1& # e A+e5

[5]

Court was examining whether the direction of two advance increments to Ph.D degree holder could be applied and be given retrospective effect, after having  considered  the  judgments  passed  by  the  Apex  Court  in  Bihta Cooperative Development Cane Marketing Union Limited vs Bank of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 389 and Virtual Soft Systems Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (2007) ITR 83, culled out the following principles:-

9.2.  From  the  aforesaid  authorities,  the  following  principles could be culled out:

i) If a statute is curative or merely clarificatory of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be permitted.

ii) In order for a subsequent order/provision/amendment to be considered as clarificatory of the previous law, the pre-amended law ought to have been vague or ambiguous. It is only when it would be impossible to reasonably interpret a provision unless an amendment is read into it, that the amendment is considered to be a clarification or a declaration of the previous law and therefore applied retrospectively.

iii)  An  explanation/clarification  may  not  expand  or  alter  the scope of the original provision.

iv)  Merely  because  a  provision  is  described  as  a clarification/explanation,  the  Court  is  not  bound  by  the  said statement in the statute itself, but must proceed to analyse the nature  of  the  amendment  and  then  conclude  whether  it  is  in reality a clarificatory or declaratory provision or whether it is a substantive amendment which is intended to change the law and which would apply prospectively.

13.    In  Dr.  Manu  and  another  (supra),  the  Apex  Court  held  as under:-

10.3.  Further,  merely  because  the  subsequent  Government Order has been described as a clarification/explanation or is said  to  have  been  issued  following  a  clarification  that  was 2024.08.29 09:25 sought in that regard, the Court is not bound to accept that the

[6]

said order is only clarificatory in nature. On an analysis of the true nature and purport of the subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001, we are of the view that it is not merely clarificatory,  but  is  a  substantial  amendment  which  seeks  to withdraw the benefit of two advance increments in favour of a certain  category  of  lecturers.  The  benefit  withdrawn  was  not anticipated  under  the  previously  existing  scheme.  Therefore, such an amendment cannot be given retrospective effect.

14.    In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge  does  not  warrant  any  interference.  The  appeal  is,  accordingly, dismissed.

15.     All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE

31.07.2024 rajesh

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?   :  Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?      :  Yes/No

143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.07.2024 Dr. Vijender Singh …Appellant Vs. Chief Secretary, State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana. ***