Mange Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors

HIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAToCHANDIGARHo ****o CWP-14762-2015oo Decidedoono17.07.2023oo ****o MangeoRamoo o o o o o o ...oPetitionero o o o VS.o o StateoofoHaryanao&oOrs.o o o o o o ...oRespondentso ****o CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.JUSTICEoSANDEEPoMOUDGILo ****o Present:oo Mr.oDSoPatwalia,oSr.Advocateowitho o Mr.oASoChadha,oAdvocateoforotheopetitioneroo o o Mr.oSSoMann,oAddl.oAGoHaryanaoo o o Mr.oParveenoChauhan,oAdvocateoforoo o Mr.oGagandeepoSinghoWasu,oAdvocateofororespondentoNo.2o o o Mr.oAdityaoGautam,oAdvocateofororespondentoNo.3o o o Mr.oSachinoGupta,oAdvocateoforoo o Mr.oGauravoMohunta,oAdvocateofororespondentoNo.4o ****o SandeepoMoudgil,oJ.oo o

(1).k Ino thiso case,o theo mooto questiono whicho ariseso foro considerationo beforeothisoCourtoisoasotoowhetherorespondentoNo.3-Commissionowasolegallyo justifiedoinodenyingoappointmentotootheopetitioneroandorevivingotheoapplicationo formooforespondentoNo.4,oafteroaoperiodoofo3omonthsoando14odaysoofotheocut-offo date,o aso theo sameo stoodo rejectedo video ordero datedo 24.09.2012o dueo too non-submissionoofoexperienceocertificateowithotheoapplicationoform?ooo

(2).k TheopetitionerohasofiledotheopresentowritopetitionoinvokingoArticleo 226oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndiaowithoaoprayeroforoissuanceoofoaowritoinotheonatureo ofo certiorario foro quashingo ofo theo recommendationo lettero datedo 22.01.2013o (Annexureo P7)o issuedo byo respondento No.3o i.e.o Haryanao Publico Serviceo CommissionoandotheoappointmentooforespondentoNo.4,owhooisoineligibleoonotheo dateoofoapplicationoandoonotheodateoofointerviewoandoinofactowhoseocandidatureo CWP-14762-2015o o -o2o-ooo o o o o wasorejectedobyotheoCommissionoitselfovideoletterodatedo24.09.2012o(Annexureo P8).ooFurther,oaodirectionoisosoughtotooconsiderotheocandidatureoofotheopetitionero andoappointohimotootheopostoofoDeputyoGeneraloManagero(Plants)o(Class-I)oino HaryanaoStateoCooperativeoSupplyoandoMarketingoFederationoLtd.o(HAFED)o underoSCocategory.oo

(3).k Respondento No.3o i.e.o Haryanao Publico Serviceo Commissiono video Advertisemento No.1o datedo 08.06.2012o invitedo applicationso fromo eligibleo candidatesotoofilloupovariousopostsoincludingotheotwoopostso(1oforoGeneral.oando1o foroSC)oofoDeputyoGeneraloManagero(Plants)o(Class-I)oinoHAFEDo(Annexureo P1).ooTheocut-offodateoforoapplicationoasoperotheoadvertisementowaso09.07.2012.oo Theo essentialo qualificationo foro theo saido posto waso Degreeo ino Mechanicalo EngineeringooroaoDegreeoinoProduction/IndustrialoEngineeringooroaoDegreeoofo B.TechoinoFoodoProcessingoTechnologyoEngineeringowitho3oyears'oexperienceoino each/respectiveocategory.ooo

(4).k TheopetitionerobelongsotooScheduledoCasteocategoryoandoholdsotheo Degreeo ofo Bacheloro ofo Engineeringo (Mechanical)o fromo MDU,o Rohtak.o Theo petitionerohadotheorequisiteoexperienceo(AnnexureoP4).ooo

(5).k Theo petitionero waso calledo foro interviewo video lettero datedo

08.10.2012oscheduledoforo19.10.2012o(AnnexureoP5).oOnlyootheopetitionerowaso presento foro interviewo undero theo reservedo categoryo aso pero attendanceo sheeto (AnnexureoP6).ooHowever,otheonameooforespondentoNo.4owasorecommendedoforo appointmentotootheosaidopostoofoDeputyoGeneraloManagero(Plants)o(Annexureo P7).oItoisoallegedothatotheocandidatureooforespondentoNo.4oAshokoKumar,owaso rejectedovideoletterodatedo24.09.2012o(AnnexureoP8)obyotheorespondentoNo.3-Commissionoasoheodidonotopossessotheorequiredoexperienceowhichoisonotoinosynco CWP-14762-2015o o -o3o-ooo o o o o withotheoinstructionso(AnnexureoP9)oissuedobyotheorespondentoNo.3-Commissiono whichostatesothatoapplicationsonotoaccompaniedobyotheoprescribedocertificatesooro accompaniedobyounattestedocertificatesowillobeorejectedoandonoocorrespondenceo willobeoentertainedoinothisoconnection…".o

(6).k Learnedo counselo foro theo petitionero contendedo thato onceo theo applicationoformooforespondentoNo.4owasorejectedobeingoincompleteoasoheodido noto possesso theo requiredo experience,o thereo iso noo questiono too giveo himo ano opportunityoforobeingointerviewedothatoalsooafterotheointerviewsowereoheldoono

19.10.2012.ooTheorejectionoofotheoapplicationoformooforespondentoNo.4owasoino conformityowithotheoinstructionso(AnnexureoP9).ooItoisofurtheroaverredothatotheo interviewso wereo scheduledo foro 19.10.2012o ono whicho date,o theo petitionero appeared.o o Theo applicationo ofo respondento No.4o iso datedo 23.10.2012o ando hiso interviewoletteroisoallegedlyosentoono31.10.2012ocallingohimoforointerviewoono

08.11.2012.ooItoisourgedothatotillotheodateoofointerviewoono19.10.2012,orespondento No.4owasonotoeligibleoasoheohadonooexperienceoasoonothatodate.ooTheoselectiono processo aso faro aso interviewso wereo concernedo culminatedo ono 19.10.2012.o Subsequently,orespondentoNo.4oproducesoexperienceocertificateoono23.10.2012o alongowithohisorepresentationowhichoisoconsideredoandoforohim,ospecialointerviewo isoheldoono08.11.2012.ooThisoclearlyoestablishedothatorespondentoNo.4oisoaoblue-eyedo boyo ando aso such,o theo officialo respondentso haveo breachedo allo ruleso ando instructionsotherebyotheocandidatureoofotheopetitionerohasobeenoprejudiced.ooo

(7).k Mr.o Patwalia,o learnedo senioro counselo furthero assertedo thato ito iso settledo lawo thato candidates,o noto moreo thano 3o timeso theo advertisedo posts,o areo requiredotoobeocalledoforotheointerview.oInotheocaseoatohands,ooneopostounderotheo SCo categoryo waso advertisedo againsto whicho 3o candidateso wereo calledo foro CWP-14762-2015o o -o4o-ooo o o o o interviewoono19.10.2012oitself.oOutoofotheo3,oonlyopetitioneroappearedoandobeingo eligible,oinoallorespects,oheooughtotoohaveobeenoselectedoandoappointed.oButoforo extraneouso reasons,o respondento no.4o waso calledo foro interviewo later,o ino ano arbitraryomanneroandowasogivenoappointmentobyotheoCommission,oillegally.oo

(8).k Itoisofurtherovehementlyocontendedoasoperotheoinformationosoughto byotheopetitionerounderoRTIoAct,o2005o(AnnexureoP-11),otheorespondentoNo.3-Commissiono haso refusedo too giveo ao copyo ofo theo interviewo lettero issuedo too respondento No.4o statingo thato onlyo oneo copyo ofo theo sameo iso prepared.o Theo respondentoNo.3-Commissionowronglyoconsideredotheorepresentationogivenobyo respondento No.4o ando surreptitiouslyo gaveo appointmento too himo ignoringo theo candidatureoofotheopetitioner.oInofact,oaoperusaloofotheorejectionoletterospecificallyo statesothatoanyorepresentationohasotoobeowithino15odaysoandotheosaidoperiodoofo15o daysoexpiredoono09.10.2012oandotheorepresentationooforespondentono.4oisodatedo

23.10.2012oi.e.oafterooneomonth.oFurthermore,oheosubmittedothatoitocannotobeolosto sighto ofo theo facto thato theo experienceo certificateo ofo respondento No.4o iso datedo

20.10.2012oi.e.omuchoafterotheoadvertisementowasoissuedoono08.06.2012oandoaso such,orespondentono.4odidonotopossessotheoexperienceoonotheocut-offodate.oo

(9).k Ito iso worthwhileo too mentiono hereo thato theo petitionero hado earliero approachedothisoCourtobyowayoofoCWP-15811-2013owithosimilaroprayeroando similarocontention,oonotheobasisoofowhich,otheoCoordinateoBenchoissuedonoticeoofo motionoinotheosaidowritopetitionowithoanoobservationothatoinocaseotheoallegationoofo theopetitionerothatorespondentoNo.4owasoappointedowithoutobeingointerviewedoono theo19.10.2012,ocostowillobeoimposedouponotheopetitioner.ooTheosaidowritopetitiono wasolateroonoadmitted.ooHowever,oonotheoapplicationomovedobyotheopetitioner,o CWP-14762-2015o o -o5o-ooo o o o o theowritopetitionowasodismissedoasowithdrawnowitholibertyotoofileoaofreshooneoono theosameocauseoofoaction.oooo

(10).k oNoticeo ofo motiono ino thiso caseo waso issuedo ono 23.07.2015o ando pursuantothereto,orepliesohaveobeenofiledobyoallotheorespondents.ooo

(11).k Respondento No.2-HAFEDo haso filedo writteno statemento datedo

05.08.2016o statingo thereino thato ito iso respondento No.3o whoo waso too selecto theo candidatesoandoHAFEDohasoabsolutelyonooroleotooplayoinotheoentireoselectiono process.ooo

(12).k Writteno statemento haso beeno filedo byo Mukesho Kumaro Ahuja,o Secretary,oHaryanaoPublicoServiceoCommissionoonobehalfooforespondentoNo.3o whereino ito haso beeno averredo thato whileo scrutinizingo theo applicationo formo submittedo byo respondento No.4,o theo Commissiono waso ofo theo viewo thato theo respondentoNo.4odidonotopossessotheoprescribedoqualifications/experienceoando accordingly,ovideoletterodatedo24.09.2012o(AnnexureoP8),oitowasoconveyedotoo himothatosinceoheodidonotopossessotheorequisiteoexperience,oheocouldonotobeocalledo foro interviewo ando ifo heo hado anyo objectiono againsto theo decisiono ofo theo Commissionoheocouldofileoaorepresentationowithodocumentaryoproofoinosupporto ofohisoclaimotootheoCommissionowithino15odaysofromotheodateoofoissueoofothiso letteroasomentionedotherein.oAorepresentationowasomovedobyorespondentoNo.4o appendingo therewitho experienceo certificates.o Theo Commissiono aftero dulyo consideringotheorepresentationoandotheoexperienceocertificateoattachedowithoito foundothatoRespondentoNo.4owasoeligibleotoobeoconsideredoforotheoaforesaidoposto andoorderedothatotheoRespondentoNo.4obeocalledoforointerview.oo

(13).k Ito iso furthero averredo thato interviewso foro theo aforesaido postso ofo DeputyoGeneralo(Plants)owereoheldoonodifferentodates.oTotalo20ocandidatesowereo CWP-14762-2015o o -o6o-ooo o o o o calledo foro interviewooutoofo whicho10o candidateso ofoGeneraloCategoryo ando3o candidateso ofo Scheduledo Casteo categoryo wereo calledo foro interviewo ono

19.10.2012.o Outo ofo them,o twoo candidateso ofo Generalo Categoryo ando twoo candidatesoofoScheduledoCasteocategoryowereoabsentoono19.10.2012.oPetitionero wasocalledoforointerviewoono19.10.2012oasoperolistoattachedo(AnnexureoR-2).o

(14).k Mr.o Adityao Gautam,o Advocateo appearingo ono behalfo ofo theo respondentoNo.3-CommissionofurtherosubmittedothatofiveocandidatesoofoGeneralo andooneocandidateoofoScheduledoCasteocategoryo(RespondentoNo.4)owereocalledo forointerviewoono08.11.2012.oOutoofotheocandidateoofoGeneraloCategory,otwoo candidatesoincludingooneoAmitoKhatriowereoabsent.oOnotheorepresentationoofo AmitoKhatrioheowasocalledoforointerviewoforo06.12.2012.oTwoocandidatesoofo GeneraloCategoryoincludingoaforesaidoAmitoKhatriowereocalledoforointerviewoforo

06.12.2012.oTheoresultoofotheoaforesaidoselectionowasodeclaredoono09.01.2013o (AnnexureoR-5).oTheoCommissionocalledo20ocandidatesoforointerviewoforotheo aforesaidotwoopostsoincludingorespondentoNo.4oandoasosuchovideoletterodatedo

22.01.2013o(AnnexureoP7),otheonamesoofotheotwooselectedocandidatesoincludingo thatooforespondentoNo.4owereorecommendedoforoappointment.ooo

(15).k Learnedocounseloalsooemphasizedothatotheoselectionohasobeenomadeo onomeritoandomeritoaloneoonotheobasisoofoperformanceoofotheocandidatesoatotheo timeoofointerviewoasoperotheocriteriaoevolvedobyotheoCommission.ooOnotheobasiso ofo avermentso madeo ino theo writteno statement,olearnedo counselo foro respondento No.3oassertedothatotheoapplicationoformoofotheorespondentoNo.4ocannotobeosaidotoo beoincompleteoorowronglyofilledoetc.ooItoisoonlyoanoopportunityogivenobyotheo respondentoNo.3otoorespondentoNo.4otoosubmitohisoobjectionofororejectionoofohiso applicationoform.ooItoisoalsooaverredothatorespondentoNo.4opossessedotheorequisiteo CWP-14762-2015o o -o7o-ooo o o o o 3oyears'oexperienceoofomechanicalolineobeforeotheocut-offodateoofotheoreceiptoofo theoapplicationoviz.o09.07.2012oandoasosuchothereoisonooillegalityooroinfirmityoino theoselection.o

(16).k Further,o ito iso theo stando takeno byo theo respondento No.3o thato theo experienceocertificateosubmittedobyorespondentoNo.4omightobeo20.10.2012obuto theorequirementoofopossessingo3oyears'oexperienceowasouptootheocut-offodateo whichowaso09.07.2012.ooTheorespondentoNo.3ohaveoadmittedothatotheopetitionero hasogotomoreothanothreeoyearsoexperienceoinomechanicalolineouptootheocutooffo dateoviz.o09.07.2012ooandothereforeoeligibleoandoconsideredoforotheopost.ooooo

(17).k WrittenoreplyohasobeenofiledoonobehalfooforespondentoNo.4o–oAshoko Kumarostatingothereinothatotheofactumoofofilingoofoearlierowritopetitionobyotheo petitionerohasobeenohighlighted.oItoisoalsoosubmittedothatonoticeoofomotionoino CWP-15811-2013owasoissuedoonlyoonotheopointothatorespondentoNo.4owasonoto calledoforointerview.oHowever,oitoisostatedothatotheosaidofactowasofoundotoobeofalseo andoasosuchocostowasoimposedobyothisoCourtoono27.08.2013o(AnnexureoR4/2).ooo

(18).k Ino theo reply,o theo respondento No.4,o whoo alsoo belongso too SCo category,ohasoappendedoexperienceocertificatesotooshowothatoheohado6oyearsoando 4omonths'oofoexperience.oHeosubmittedothatoheodidonotoencloseotheoexperienceo certificateofromoClaasoIndiaoP.Ltd.oHeofurtherosubmittedothatorespondentoNo.4o hadoattachedotheoexperienceocertificatesoandomistake,oifoany,owasodoneobyotheo Commissiono foro rejectingo theo application.o o Theo Commissiono realizedo ando rectifiedoitso mistakeobyo sendingointerviewo lettero too theo respondento No.4o ando otherosimilarlyosituatedocandidatesowhoseoapplicationoformowasoalsoorejected.ooo

(19).k RelianceohasobeenoplacedoonotheodecisionsoofotheoSupremeoCourtoino

(i)oRamoKumaroGijroyaovs.oDelhioSubordinateoServicesoSelectionoBoardo&o CWP-14762-2015o o -o8o-ooo o o o o Anr.o(2016)o4oSCCo754,o(ii)oRamoSarupovs.oStateoofoHaryanao(1979)oSCCo1o 168,o(iii)oTridipoKumaroDingalo&oOrs.ovs.oStateoofoWestoBengalo&oOrs.o(2009)o 1oSCCo768,o(iv)oStateoofoUPovs.oNawaboHussaino(1977)o2oSCCo806oasowelloaso ofothisoCourtoinoAnupamoMalikovs.oKamaloSinghoYadavo&oOrs.o2004o(4)oSCTo 590oandoUnionoofoIndiaovs.oMonikao&oAnr.o2018(2)oSCTo104otoocontendothato theocandidatureoofotheoreservedocategoryocandidateocannotobeorejectedosimplyoono accountoofolateosubmissionoofocertificateoandoserviceoofothoseocandidatesowhoo wereoalreadyoappointedoinoserviceoforowantoofonaturalojusticeoandoonotheogroundo thatotheyohadogainedo3oyears'oexperience.ooItowasoalsoourgedothatobyotheotimeothiso Courto waso calledo upono too decideo theo matter,o theo selectedo ando appointedo candidateoi.e.orespondentoNo.4ohasocompleteomoreothano10oyearsoofoserviceoando asosuchoitoisonotorightotoosetoasideohisoappointmentoatothisostage.oooo

(20).k Heardolearnedocounseloofotheopartiesoandogoneothroughotheorecord.ooo

(21).k Theoallegationoasocanobeoculledooutoisothatotheopetitionerosolelyo appearedoinotheointerviewoheldoono19.10.2012oinoSCocategoryoforotheopostoofo DeputyoGeneraloManagero(Plants).oHowever,osubsequentlyoono08.11.2012oagaino interviewo waso heldo ando respondento No.4o appearedo ino theo saido interviewo ono

08.11.2012o foro selectiono too theo saido post.o Whereaso candidateo ofo respondento NO.4ostoodorejectedoono24.09.2012o(AnnexureoP8)oonotheogroundothatoheodidonoto appendotheorequisiteoexperienceocertificateowithohisoapplicationoform.oHowever,o heowasogivenograntedolibertyotoomoveoaorepresentation/objectionowithino15odayso therefrom,oforotheointerviewowasoscheduledotoobeoheldothereafter,oono19.10.2012.o Buto theo respondento No.4o dido noto moveo anyo sucho representationo withino theo specifiedotime,obutoaomontholateroi.e.oono23.10.2012o(AnnexureoP10)owhichohaso CWP-14762-2015o o -o9o-ooo o o o o beenoacceptedobyotheoCommissionoandothereafter,owasoselectedoandoappointedotoo theopostoinoquestion.o

(22).k ThisoCourtovideoorderodatedo02.05.2018odirectedotheorespondentsotoo furnishospecificoaffidavitoexplainingotheofollowingopoints:-o "(i)o Whethero respondento No.4o had,o indeed,o furnishedo allo theo documents,oincludingotheoexperienceocertificate,owithohisoapplicationo form,obeforeotheoclosingodate;o

ii)oWhetheroinotermsoofotheoadvertisement,oincompleteoformsosubmittedo byotheocandidates,owereorequiredotoobeoout-rightlyorejected;oo

iii)o Ifo theo Commissiono hado rejectedo theo candidatureo ofo respondento No.4,o theno undero whato provisions/normso hiso representationo foro re-considerationoofohisocandidature,ocouldobeoconsidered;oo

iv)oWhetherorespondentoNo.4omovedoanyosuchorepresentationowithino theospecifiedotime,oforoitowasospecificallyoobservedoinotheoletterodatedo

24.9.2012o(AnnexureoP-8);othatoinotheoeventonooobjectionsoareofiledo withino15odaysofromotheodateoofoissuanceoofotheosaidoletter,onoofurthero correspondenceowillobeoentertained;oo

v)oWhether,oevenoinotheonormaloparlance,oafterotheocandidatureoofoao candidateoisorejectedoowingotooincompleteoapplicationoform,oheostillo canobeograntedoanotherochanceotoomakeogoodotheodeficienciesoforore-considerationoofohisocandidature;oo

vi)o And,o ifo yes,o whethero allo thoseo candidates,o whoseo formso wereo rejectedo foro oneo reasono oro theo other,o wereo alsoo giveno anothero opportunity."o

(23).k Inocomplianceotootheoorderodatedo02.05.2018,oanoaffidavitoodatedo

28.05.2018o haso beeno filedo whereino ito haso beeno categoricallyo averredo thato respondento No.4o furnishedo allo theo documentso excepto experienceo certificateo beforeotheoclosingodateoi.e.o09.07.2012.ooAsoperogeneraloclarificationsoNoteoIIo

(04)o(07)oofotheoAdvertisementoNo.1,otheoincompleteoandounsignedoformowithouto CWP-14762-2015o o -o10o-ooo o o o o proofo ofo minimumo requiredo qualificationo etc.o wouldo rendero theo candidateo ineligible.ooo

(24).k Onotheopointoasotoounderowhatoprovisions/normsorepresentationoofo respondentoNo.4oforore-considerationoofohisocandidature,ocouldobeoconsidered,oito hasobeenoaverredoinotheoaffidavitothatorepresentationodatedoNilowasoreceivedoino theoofficeoofoHPSCoono23.10.2012oinorespectooforejectionoletterodatedo24.09.2012o whereino heo waso requiredo too submito theo 'experienceo certificate'o beforeo theo specifiedodateoi.e.o09.10.2012.ooTheorequirementoofosubmissionoofoexperienceo certificateoand/oroobjectionowithinotheospecifiedodateoinotermsoofotheorejectiono letterodatedo24.09.2012,oasoperotheoaffidavitoofoHPSC,oisonotorigidobutorelaxableo aso theo Commission,o ino exerciseo ofo itso powerso tooko consciouso decisiono too considero theo representationo ofo respondento No.4o consideringo theo 'experienceo certificate'osubmittedoafterotheospecifiedodate,otoobeovalid.ooo

(25).k ItoisofurtheroinformedothatotheoCommissionohadonotoonlyoconsideredo theorepresentationooforespondentoNo.4obutoalsootheorepresentationsoofo7oothero rejectedocandidatesowhoohadoappliedoforotheosaidopost.ooFurther,oitoisostatedothato theo candidatureo ofo respondento No.4o waso noto rejectedo owingo too 'incompleteo application'oformobutoonoaccountoofo'non-submissionoofotheorequisiteoexperienceo certificates'.ooNotoonlyothis,otheocandidatureoofo7ootherocandidateso(Annexureo RR-1)owhoohadoappliedoforotheosameoveryopostoaboutowhichorespondentoNo.4o hado appliedo wereo rejectedo buto ono theiro representation,o theyo wereo consideredo eligibleoandoallowedotooappearoinotheointerview.ooo

(26).k Asoperotheoadvertisement,otheoessentialoqualificationoprescribedobyo theorespondentoNo.3-Commission,oforotheopostsoofoDeputyoGeneraloManagero (Plants)o(Class-I)oinoHAFED,oreadsoasounder:-o CWP-14762-2015o o -o11o-ooo o o o o "i)o Degreeo ino Mech.Engg.o oro degreeo ino production/industrialo Engg.oOrodegree/B.TechoinofoodoprocessingotechnologyoEngg.oWitho 3oyearsoexperienceoinoeach/respectiveocategory…o

ii)oxxxxo o xxxxo o o xxxx"oo

(27).k Theoclosingodateoinotheoabove-mentionedoadvertisementowasofixedo aso09.07.2012.ooSub-Noteo(4)otoo(7)oofoNoteoIIounderotheoGeneraloClarificationoofo theo Advertisement,o whicho relevanto ino theo presento context,o iso reproducedo aso under:-o "4.oIncompleteoApplicationoFormoi.e.owithoutoproofoofoageoandotheo minimumo requiredo qualificationso willo beo straightwayo rejectedo withoutoenteringointooanyocorrespondence.oo

5.oTheoeligibilityoofocandidatesowithoregardotooqualificationsoando experienceowillobeodeterminedoonotheoclosingodateofororeceiptoofo applicationoForms.oo

6.oHaryanaoPublicoServiceoCommissionowillonotobeoresponsibleoforo anyodelayoonotheopartoofoPostoDepartmentooroCourieroAgencyoando allotheoapplicationsoreceivedoafterotheoclosingodateowillobeorejectedo outright.oo

7.oIncompleteoApplicationoFormsoorounsignedoApplicationoFormso shallorenderotheocandidateoineligible."ooo

(28).k Ino fact,o ino theo "INSTRUCTIONSo TOo CANDIDATESo FORo APPOINTMENTo BYo SELECTION"o issuedo byo theo respondento No.3-Commission,o ito haso beeno categoricallyo mentionedo ino Clause-8o thato theo applicationo shouldo beo accompaniedo byo attestedo copieso ofo theo requiredo certificateso ando thoseo applicationso noto accompaniedo byo theo prescribedo certificate/unattestedocertificatesowillobeorejectedoandothatonoosubsequentodateoofo interviewowillobeogivenoforotheopurposeoofoproductionoofocertificates.ooItowaso furtheroinstructedothatonoocertificateoisoacceptableoafterotheodateoofointerview.o Clause-8oofotheosaidoInstructionsoreadsoasounder:-o CWP-14762-2015o o -o12o-ooo o o o o "Theoapplicationsoshouldobeoaccompaniedobyotheoattestedocopiesoofo allotheorequiredocertificates.oTheoattestationoshouldobeomadeobyoao GazettedoOfficeroorobyoaoMagistrateounderotheosealoofohisoofficeo givingotheonameoofotheoOfficeroandohisodatedosignatures.oOriginalo certificatesomustobeoproducedoatotheotimeoofointerview,ounattestedo copiesoofocertificatesowillonotobeoacceptable.ooIfoaocandidateowhoo failsotooproduceotheooriginalocertificatesoatotheotimeoofointerview,o hisocandidatureowillobeorejectedoandoheowillonotobeointerviewed.oNoo subsequentodateoofointerviewowillobeogivenoandonooappealowillobeo acceptableoonothisoaccount.oPhotostatocopiesomustoalsoobeoattested.oo Applicationo noto accompaniedo byo theo prescribedo certificateso oro accompaniedo byo unattestedo certificateso willo beo rejectedo ando noo correspondenceo willo beo entertainedo ino thiso connection.o o Undero circumstanceso beyondo controlo ao candidateo mayo beo permittedo too produceocertificateootherothanothoseowhichorelateotoodetermineohiso eligibilityoatotheotimeoofointerview.oNoocertificateoisoacceptableoaftero theodateoofointerview."o

(29).k Clause-19o ofo theo saido Instructionso alsoo envisageso thato "allo achievementsoinoanyofieldowillobeoacceptableoifomadeobeforeotheolastodateoofo submissionoofoapplicationoformsotootheoCommission".oClause-20oalsoostatesothato "anyoachievementoinoanyofieldoifonotomentionedoinotheoapplicationoformowillonoto beoacceptedoifoaocertificateoisonotoproducedobeforeotheoclosingodate."o

(30).k FurtheroasoperotheointerviewocalloletteroissuedobyorespondentoNO.3-Commission,oinformingotheodateoofointerviewoaso19.10.2012,oitowasospecificallyo mentionedoinotheoNoteogivenoatotheobottomoofotheocalloletterothatotheo"dateoofo interviewowillonotobeochanged".ooItoalsooappearsofromotheoletterodatedo24.09.2012o (AnnexureoP8)oissuedotoorespondentoNo.4ostatingothereinothatotheoapplicationo formosubmittedobyotheorespondentoNo.4oforotheoaforesaidopostoisobeingorejectedo sinceo "youo haveo noto possessedo 3o yearso experienceo ino respectiveo category".oo CWP-14762-2015o o -o13o-ooo o o o o Besides,o whileo rejectingo theo applicationo form,o theo respondento No.3-Commission,o foro theo reasonso besto knowno too them,o alsoo incorporatedo theo followingolines:-o "IfoyouohaveoanyoobjectionoagainstotheodecisionoofotheoCommission,o youocanorepresentowithodocumentaryoproofoinosupportoofoyouroclaimo tootheoCommissionowithino15odaysofromotheodateoofoissueoofothiso letterofailingowhichoyourorepresentationowillonotobeoconsideredoando thereafteronoocorrespondenceowillobeoentertainedoinothisoregard".o

(31).k Theopetitionerohasoalsooplacedoonorecordotheorepresentationomovedo byotheorespondentoNo.4owhichowasomovedoono23.10.2012oi.e.oaftero15odaysoofo theointerviewowhichowasoheldoono08.10.2012.oTheocontentsoofotheorepresentationo oforespondentoNo.4oisoreproducedoasounder:-o "HaryanaoPublicoServiceoCommissiono ReceivingoNo.6395o Dated:o23.10.2012o Too o HaryanaoPublicoServiceoCommission,oo Panchkulao o o o RespectedoSir,o o oo ItoisosubmittedothatoIohadoappliedoinoD.G.M.oPlantsoH.Fedo andotheosameowasorejectedobyoyouoonoaccountoofolackoofoexperience.o IofulfillotheothreeoyearsoexperienceoofoMechanicaloline.ooTheocopyoofo myoexperienceoofothreeoyearsoinoMechanicaloLineo(photoostatocopy)o isoattachedoherewith.ooKindlyogiveomeoanoopportunityoforointerview.o o Thankingoyouo ApplicantoSd/-oo AshokoKumaros/ooChunnioLal.."o o

(32).k Aoperusaloofotheocopyoofoexperienceocertificateoshowingorespondento No.4ohavingoacquiredothreeoyearsoexperienceoinoMechanicaloLineowouldoshowo thato theo sameo waso issuedo ono 20.10.2012o i.e.o aftero theo cut-offo dateo i.e.o

09.07.2012.oTheosameoisoreproducedohereunder:-o CWP-14762-2015o o -o14o-ooo o o o o "Toowhomosooeveroitomayoconcerno ThisoisotoocertifyothatoMr.oAshokoKumaros/ooSh.oChunnioLalohasobeeno workingoasoAssociateoManageroinoouroorganizationow.e.f.oMarcho03,o2009otoo tillodate.oHeohasothreeoyearsoandoeightomonthsoofoexperienceoinoMechanicalo Engineeringo Department.o Heo iso responsibleo foro allo theo Mechanicalo Engineeringorelatedoactivitiesoinotheoplant.o HisopresentogrossoemolumentsoareoRs.62471/-operomonth.oo Weowishohimosuccessoinohisofuture.o o ForoClaasoIndiaoPvt.oLtd.o Sd/-oSudhiroKumaroGuptao GeneraloManager-MechanicaloEngg.oDeptt.o o Date:oOctobero20,o2012o Place:oMorinda"o o

(33).k Theo petitionero eveno soughto copyo ofo interviewo lettero sento too respondentoNo.4otooappearoforotheointerviewoono08.11.2012,ounderotheoRightotoo InformationoAct.oBesides,otheopetitioneroalsoosoughtotheogroundsoonowhichotheo applicationoformooforespondentoNO.4,owhichowasorejected,ohasobeenoacceptedo afteroexpiryoofolastodateoofosubmissionoofoapplicationoformoandounderowhicho provisionoofolawowhichocourseoofoactionohasobeenoadopted.ooAnnexureoA,oaso forwardedo byo theo respondento No.3-Commission,o whicho iso replyo too theo RTIo applicationoofotheopetitioner,oreadsoasounder:-o "Sr.o Informationosoughtobyoapplicanto Answero No.o

1.o Xxxxo Xxxxo

2.o Copyo ofo Interviewo lettero sento too Mr.o Ashoko Onlyooneocopyoofointerviewoletteroiso Kumaro ino theo Scheduledo Casteo categoryo ofo preparedo Haryanao foro theo aboveo saido posto byo theo Commissiono too appearo foro interviewo ono dt.o

08.11.2012.o Ifo theo copyo ofo theo sameo iso noto availableo ino Haryanao Publico Serviceo Commission,opleaseomentionounderowhichoruleo iso ito providedo thato sucho recordso areo noto requiredotoobeomaintained?o

4.o Groundoonowhichotheorejectedoapplicationoono Sh.o Ashoko Kumaro hado claimedo hiso Mr.o Ashoko Kumaro waso acceptedo aftero theo experienceo ino hiso applicationo formo expiryo ofo theo lasto dateo ofo submissiono ofo accordingotoowhichoonotheobasisoofo applicationoformo hiso applicationo formo heo waso calledo foro interviewo byo theo ordero ofo theo commission.o

5.o Ruleo undero whicho theo rejectedo applicationo Ono theo basiso ofo representationo CWP-14762-2015o o -o15o-ooo o o o o formoofoMr.oAshokoKumarowasoacceptedo submittedo byo Sh.o Ashoko Kumaro heo waso calledo foro interviewo byo theo commission.o

6.o Xxxxo Xxxxo

10.o Copyoofointerviewoscheduleoonowhichodateoitoiso Theo dateo ofo interviewo waso publishedoforoaboveosaidopostothreeodifferento announcedo foro 19.10.2012.o o Aso pero dateso i.e.o 19.10.2012,o 08.11.2012o ando ordersoofocommission,ocandidatesoono

06.12.2012o theo basiso ofo theiro representationso wereo calledo foro interviewo ono

08.11.2012oando06.12.2012."o o

(34).k AoFulloBenchoofothisoCourtoinoInduoGuptaovs.oDirector,oSportso Punjab,oChandigarho&oAnr.oAIRo1999oP&Ho319,oconsideredowhetheroitoiso obligatoryoonotheopartoofotheoapplicantotooannexotheorequisiteocertificateoalongo withotheoapplicationoformopriorotootheolastodateoofoitsosubmission.oooTheoFullo Benchoobservedothatotheoadvertisement/brochureohasotheoforceoofolawoandothatoo strictoadherenceotooitsotermsoandoconditionsoisoofoparamountoconsiderationoando termsoandoconditionsoincludingotheocutooffodateocannotobeorelaxedounlessosucho powero iso specificallyo providedo too ao giveno authorityo byo useo ofo unambiguouso language.oTheoFulloBenchofurtheroheldoasounder:-o "14.oTheotermsoandoconditionsoofotheobrochureoimposesoaoclearo obligationouponotheoapplicantotoomakeoaospecificoclaimoandosupporto sucho claimo witho requisiteo documents.o Theo specifico claimo ofo theo candidateowouldobeoliableotoobeoentertainedoonlyoifoitoisosupportedo byotheosaidodocuments.oInoabsenceothereofooroifotheoapplicationoiso otherwiseo incomplete,o ito wouldo beo liableo too beo rejectedo ando theo authoritiesoconcernedowouldobeounderonooobligationotooconsidero suchoclaim.oToostakeoaoclaimounderoaoparticularocategoryoisoforotheo candidateotoodecideobutoonceosuchoaodecisionoisotakenobyohimoheoiso obligedo too strictlyo adhereo ando complyo witho theo termso ando conditionsoofotheobrochureoandofurnishoallotheorequisiteoinformationo askedo foro includingo submissiono ofo theo certificateo likeo gradationo certificateoinocaseoofoaoclaimobeingostakedotoosportsocategory."o

"+:.o%no"iewoofotheoabo"eodiscussionotheoonlyounassailableoando "eritableo"iewoisothatoaocandidateotoosuchoentranceotest,oino"iewoofo theotermsoandoconditionsoofotheobrochure,oafore$referred,oisoobligedo too submito allo theo certificateso re#uiredo too anne o alongo witho theo applicationoandosubmitotheosameocompleteoinoallorespectsobeforeotheo cutooffodate.o%nodefaultothereto,onooobligationoisoimposedouponotheo authoritiesoconcernedotooentertainosuchoapplicationoorotoograntoseato toothatocandidate.1o +)C-. At this stage, it would be appropriate to make reference to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukta Bansal v. State of Punjab, 1997 (4) R.S.J. 796 where the Court held as under :-- "It is also equally a settled principle of law that the eligibility of the candidate has to be considered at the time and date meant for submission of application forms. It is also not disputed that the application of the petitioner was not complete by 25-6-1997, the last date for admission of firms. This is also not disputed that in absence of such a certificate the petitioner would not be eligible for claiming a seat in the sports category. The very foundation of the claim is based upon gradation certificate which admittedly was not submitted on the aforesaid date. The respondents obviously could not have considered the petitioner as eligible, if his application was not complete in all respects and was not accompanied with the gradation certificate as on 25-6-1997". +)9-. A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 Serv LR 673 had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not

+):-. In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, 1994 (4) RSJ 289 another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a Course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. +);-. Again, a Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjabi University, AIR 1996 Punj & Har 109 took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. It is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected. +)4-. It has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in Dr. Sri Kant Rao v. State of Rajasthan, (1975) 2 Serv LR 94 that "equality of opportunity will be determined for the purpose of Article 16 of the Constitution by the terms of advertisement calling for applications for filling up a post. Where in the advertisement, it was not suggested that the qualifications prescribed were relaxable or the applications would be entertained thereafter (on the expiry of the prescribed date), it will not be open to the competent authority to relax the terms of the advertisement. (Emphasis applied) CWP-14762-2015o o -o18o-ooo o o o o

(40).k Inotheopresentocase,ofirstly,oasoperolisto(AnnexureoP6),oitowasoonlyo theopetitioneroMangeoRamo whoowasopresentoinotheointerview,ooutoofototalo3o candidates,owhichowasoheldoono19.10.2012.ooTheoapplicationoformooforespondento No.4ostoodorejectedoono24.09.2012oonotheogroundoofonon-submissionoofo3oyearso experienceocertificate,ohowever,o15odaysotimeowasograntedotoorespondentoNo.4otoo representowithodocumentaryoproof.ooRejectionoofoapplicationoformooforespondento No.4oandosimultaneousograntoofo15odaysotimeotoorepresentoinoitselforunsocontraryo tootheoveryotermsoandoconditionsoofotheoadvertisementowhich,oinonoouncertaino terms,ostipulatesothato"incompleteoApplicationoFormoi.e.owithoutoproofoofoageo andotheominimumorequiredoqualificationsowillobeostraightwayorejectedowithouto enteringointooanyocorrespondence"oandothato"theoeligibilityoofocandidatesowitho regardotooqualificationsoandoexperienceowillobeodeterminedoonotheoclosingodateo fororeceiptoofoapplicationoForms.ooItoisowellosettledothatotheoadvertisementohasotheo forceo ofo lawo ando thato stricto adherenceo too itso termso ando conditionso iso ofo paramountoconsiderationoandotermsoandoconditionsoincludingotheocut-offodateo cannoto beo relaxedo unlesso sucho powero iso specificallyo providedo too ao giveno authorityo byo useo ofo unambiguouso language.o o Thato beingo so,o undero whicho provisiono ofo lawo dido theo respondento No.3-Commissiono calledo upono theo respondento No.4o toorepresento withino15odayso onceo hiso applicationo formo waso outrightlyorejectedobeingoincomplete.ooInofact,otheoprovisionoofo15odays'operiodo enablingoaorejectedocandidateotoorepresentoinosupportoofohisoclaimoinoitselfoisoao practiceounknownotoolawoandohenceoisoliableotoobeodeprecated.oooo

(41).k Secondly,oevenoaftero15odays'operiodograntedotoorespondentoNo.4o whichostartedofromo24.09.2012oandoinopursuanceothereto,otheorespondentoNo.4o submittedohisorepresentationoono23.10.2012oi.e.oaftero29odays.oMeaningotherebyo

that the respondent No.4 filed his representation much after the prescribed period of 15 days within which the respondent No.4 was required to represent. Another aspect which frowns this Court is that even the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.4 is of dated 20.10.2012 i.e. after the cut-off date prescribed by the Commission to be 09.07.2012 which is not in sync with the Instruction No.19 which provides that "alloachie"ementsoinoanyofieldowillobeo acceptableoifomadeobeforeotheolastodateoofosubmissionoofoapplicationoformsotootheo &ommission1.oo7"erefore,ore1!onsiderationooforepresentationooforespondento'o.*o afterot"eore2e!tionoofo"iso!andidat%reo ideoAnne5%reoP;oasoalsoot"eoa!!eptan!eoofo e5perien!eo!ertifi!ateodatedo20.10.2012 of respondent No.4 iss%edoafterot"eo!%t1 offodateoi.e.o09.07.2012,owo%ldoamo%ntotoo!"angingot"eor%lesoofot"eogameoaso drawnoinot"eoad ertisementow"i!"oiso!learlyoimpermissitile.o7"iso iewoofomineoiso fortifiedotiyose eralode!isionsoofot"eoS%premeo#o%rt.oKRef.o1.oK.oRamachandrao 7yerov.otinionoo(o7ndiaoo *+#o(2"oS$$o # Lootimesho$handraoShu5laov.otiniono o(o7ndiaoo *+&o(="oS$$o%2 ,oandoDur-acharano4israov.oStateoo(o.rissaoo *+%o (#"oS$$o!#!oM.o +*(-. Thirdly, the date of interview of respondent No.4, in the SC category, was fixed as 08.11.2012. In the said interview, as per list (Annexure R3), only the sole candidate i.e. respondent No.4 was called for the interview. Moreover, there is nothing on record to suggest that since various representations are being received from rejected candidates, as such interviews will be held on various dates so as to give a fair chance to other candidates. Had it been so, the Commission ought not to have rejected the candidature of applicants with incomplete application forms rather, they should have sent notice calling upon the applicants to make up the deficiency within a stipulated

period and thereafter, should have fixed the date of interview. Such whimsical act on the part of the respondent No.3-Commission only smacks of mala fide, ulterior motive, favouritism and nepotism giving space for tainted selection of their favourite candidate. +*)-. It is well settled and requires no reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure as prescribed in the advertisement which has the force of law. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement; the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must be mentioned in the advertisement. But in the present case, as per the information furnished by the Commission, there is no such power in the Rules which provide for rejuvenating the candidature of a rejected candidate. Moreover, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity which has apparently been given a go-bye. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any public notice/notification/circular was issued or pasted that interviews for the post of Deputy General Manager shall be held on different dates.

+**-. Fourthly, it is astonishing that the respondent No.3-Commission being a Government establishment, is not maintaining official record inasmuch as the information furnished under the RTI Act to the petitioner suggests that the copy of interview letter issued to respondent No.4 is not available on the official record of the respondent No.3-Commission since "only one copy of interview letter is prepared". Furthermore, after having rejected the candidature of respondent No.4 vide Annexure P8, it was solely on the basis of representation submitted by respondent No.4 that he was called for interview by the Commission. It is heartbreaking to learn that the Commission, with its high stature of making selection for the whole State, is not being run by rule of law but on the influence of 'representations' made by a rejected candidate by permitting him another chance of appearing in the interview. All discretionary powers of executive authorities have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. The exercise of powers by an authority cannot be unguided or unbridled as the Constitution prescribes the limitations for each and every authority and therefore, no one, howsoever high he may be, has a right to exercise the power beyond the purpose for which the same has been conferred on him. Thus, the powers have to be exercised within the framework of the Constitution and legislative provisions, otherwise, it would be an exercise of power in violation of the basic features of the Constitution i.e. Part III dealing with the fundamental rights which also prescribes the limitations. The basic requirement of Articles 14 & 16 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance

is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. +*C-. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that when the respondent No.3-Commission, in the present case, took into consideration the requisite experience certificate issued after the cut-off date, it acted with patent illegality, irrationality, arbitrariness and against the mandate enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and on this ground itself, the selection of respondent No.4 is liable to be quashed. +*9-. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the recommendation dated 22.01.2013 issued by respondent-Commission vide which respondent No.4 has been recommended for appointment, is quashed. The respondent No.3-Commission is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager (Plants) (Class-I). +*:-. This Court is, nevertheless, fully conscious of the legal position that appointment of a candidate who has erroneously secured public employment without fulfillment of minimum qualifications can always be annulled upon discovery of mistake. An appointment which is erroneous or illegal from the very inception does not clothe the appointee with any indefeasible right and such appointment is always subject to correctional decisions. However, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the writ petition was filed way back in 2015 and by the time, this Court was called upon to decide the matter, the selected and appointed candidate viz. respondent No.4 has completed approximately ten years of service. It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of procedural delay. Broom has stated the maxim actus

curiae neminem gravabit — an act of court shall prejudice no man. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, respondent No.2 – HAFED is directed to consider the desirability of adjusting respondent No.4 on a vacant post (if he is still in service), since the lapse, if at all, was on the part of respondent No.3-Commission and not on the part of the respondent No.4. +*;-. Ordered accordingly. o ,:.3:.(3()o 0)*!dee+o$ ,d-i.1o G.Gishalo J,d-eo

¶1Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

¶2Whether reportable? Yes/No o