The High Court
Case Details
LPA-1871-2023 ( 023 (O&M) Page 1 of 5 238 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT KESHAV KUM KUMAR M) LPA-1871-2023 (O&M) 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 Vs. llant . . . . Appellant HARYANA ST NA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSI MISSION AND OTHERS . . . . Respondents s **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ CORAM: HO HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE HO SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate with Present: M Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate M for the appellant. for **** Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Ha M G., Haryana. SANJEEV PR ral) V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) **** 1. This is an is is an appeal preferred against the jud ssed the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Si the Single Judge whereby the joint wri llant writ petition filed by the appellant (petitione titioner No.7 therein) along with six o d of, h six other persons was disposed of, holding t lding that the question of law raised in ed in sed in the petition stands answered in CWP No No.11454 of 2018 titled as Vikram B nd ram Bhatti vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.12.2019. 2. It appear appears that the appellant preferred a r t that ed a review petition to point out that the case o case of the appellant was different from ra). nt from that of Vikram Bhatti (supra). However wever, the same was dismissed vide and d vide order dated 22.11.2023, and thereafter reafter, the present appeal has been pref en preferred before this Court. 3. Consider nsidering the nature of the case, we hav stage we have heard the matter at this stage finally. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1871-2023 ( 023 (O&M) Page 2 of 5 4. We notic notice that in Vikram Bhatti (supra) had upra), the concerned petitioner had ssailed the action of not calling him for assailed t Field im for selection for the post of Field Inspector pector (Store) pursuant to the advertise The dvertisement in BC(A) category. The petitioner titioner therein possessed B.Tech degr logy h degree in Information Technology from a and m a recognized University and the Single Bench held t that that notwithst twithstanding the fact that his diplom an diploma in computers was from an unrecogn recognized Institute, the issue for consi r his r consideration would be whether his engineeri gineering qualification could be brush m as brushed aside so as to treat him as ineligible ligible for selection, and the writ pet wed rit petition was accordingly allowed directing ecting the respondents to treat the petiti ment e petitioner as eligible for recruitment to the sub the subject post. 5. Learned
Legal Reasoning
arned counsel for the appellant subm nt as submits that his case is different as he does n does not possess degree in B.Tech in I ut is ch in Information Technology, but is a gradua raduate who has done One year cert CH. ar certificate course from APTECH. He subm submits that the State Governm State vernment and the Haryana State Cooperat operative Supply and Marketing eting Federation had (HAFED) had conveyed yed to the Haryana Staff Selectio wing election Commission that following certificat rtificates issued from the institutions w ized tions would be treated as recognized which in ich included the certificate from AP r the om APTECH. Thus, it was for the learned S rned Single Judge to have examined t and mined the case of the appellant and direct th ect the respondents to consider his c d on r his case for appointment based on his educ educational qualification of havi year f having completed a One year certificat rtificate course from APTECH, which which was in the field of computers. 6. Learned arned counsel has also taken this Cour y the s Court to the marks obtained by the appellant pellant in the performance statement icate tement issued by NCSE, certificate MOHIT GOYAL 2025.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1871-2023 ( 023 (O&M) Page 3 of 5 examinat amination course for Semester 1 and e on 1 and Semester 2 which were on record w
Decision
ord with the writ petition. 7. We have e have perused the same and are satisfi s satisfied that the appellant possesses minimum nimum One year diploma in Compute rsity mputers from recognized University institute. titute. The educational qualification Field ation required for the post of Field Inspector spector (Store) category No.56 in the a n the advertisement were as under: “i) Graduation from recogn cognized University; ii) Minimum 1 year diplom ploma in computer from the recognized University/Ins ty/Institute; iii) Knowledge of Hindi/S di/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard or Higher educatio cation.” Thus, the appellant possessed the a Th d the aforesaid qualifications. 8. We also e also note that in the order sheets dr y the eets drawn from time to time by the learned S rned Single Judge, there are notings 2022 s on the orders dated 23.11.2022 and 29.11 d 29.11.2022, which are as under: Order da er dated 23.11.2022: “Learned counsel appearin earing for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.2 and su and 7 have secured more marks than the last selected ma ted candidate in their category and therefore, they wo ca y would be eligible for appointment while petitioner No ap No.3, who has secured 170 marks in the EBPGC catego 17 tegory, would be entitled to be put in the waiting list. to Learned State counsel pra prays for time to seek instructions as to whether ther ins there are vacant posts against which the petitioners could ag could be adjusted.” Order da er dated 29.11.2022: “Learned State counsel up l upon instructions from Ms. Sunita, Assistant, Admin-II, H M II, HAFED submits that MOHIT GOYAL 2025.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1871-2023 ( 023 (O&M) Page 4 of 5 posts of Field Inspector under po nder EPBGC and BCA category are available against wh ca t which petitioners No.2, 3 and 7 can be accommodated. H 3 ed. He also submits that petitioner No.3 was in the waiting pe iting list and the waiting list has already exhausted. Petitio lis titioner No.1 has secured less marks than the last select les elected candidate while petitioners No.4, 5 and 6 did no pe d not have the requisite eligibility inasmuch as they had n eli ad not qualified one year diploma in computer.” dip 9. Thus, fro us, from above, it is apparent that the s not hat the learned Single Judge has not en taken into consideration in the facts of facts the case relating to to appellant pellant/petitioner No.7 and has pas the as passed an order based on the judgment gment passed in the case of Vikram no ram Bhatti (supra), which had no applicatio plication to the facts of the case of the a case f the appellant. Even though the case of Vikram ikram Bhatti (supra) was allowed, th any ed, the appellant did not receive any benefit fr nefit from the same. 10. We acco e accordingly modify the order dated 31 rned 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Single J gle Judge and hold the petitioner No.7 gible r No.7/appellant herein, to be eligible for consi consideration for appointment, and as arks nd as he has secured sufficient marks in his ow his own category, the Haryana Staff Se now taff Selection Commission shall now take into e into consideration his merit treatin ake treating him as eligible and make recomme ommendations to respondent No.2/ No.2/HAFED for consideration for for appointm pointment. Upon such recommendatio rned ndation being made, the concerned employer ployer shall proceed and pass appropria f one propriate orders within a period of one month, if nth, if he is found otherwise suitable. 11. It is ma is made clear that the appointment o iven ent of the appellant shall be given notionall tionally from the date other persons n so rsons lesser in merit have been so MOHIT GOYAL 2025.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1871-2023 ( 023 (O&M) Page 5 of 5 appointed pointed. However, no salary shall be p ning ll be paid to him for the intervening riod. period. 12. The c e compliance shall be made by ction by the Haryana Staff Selection Commissi mmission within period of two weeks h eeks henceforth. 13. Appeal st ppeal stands allowed accordingly. 14. All pend ll pending applications also stand dispo d disposed of. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) (ME JUDGE 07.04.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether s 2. Whether r er speaking/reasoned? er reportable? Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2025.04.07 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document