AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
A speaking order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-18), passed by the Director, Education Recruitment Directorate, Punjab, in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in CWP-24114-2024, is put to challenge by the petitioner. Additionally, she prays for issuance of a Mandamus upon the respondents to appoint her to the post of Mistress in the subject of Physical Education, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 08.01.2022 (Annexure P-1).
Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the respondent-department had issued an advertisement dated 08.01.2022 (Annexure P-1), from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Master Cadre in various subjects. In response, the petitioner applied for the post of Mistress in the subject of Physical Education in the General (Sports) and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Category. As per the advertisement, total number of posts in the subject of Physical Education was 168, and the last date to apply was scheduled as 30.01.2022, which, as per the response filed on behalf of the respondents, was extended till 20.04.2022. Thereafter, vide Amendment Letter dated 24.01.2022 (Annexure P-2), certain changes with regard to percentage in Graduation were carried out. The written examination was conducted on 04.09.2022, in which, the petitioner secured 91 marks out of 150 (Annexure P-5). However, every candidate was required to have qualified the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test-II (PSTET-II), in terms of the advertisement. Pertinently, at the time of submitting her application, the petitioner did not have the qualification of PSTET-II, as she could only secure 89 marks in the year 2018, against the requirement of minimum 90 marks. Thereafter, all the candidates belonging to General (Sports) Category were called for scrutiny of original documents, and for the candidates of the EWS (General), the cut-off was set at 110 marks. During the selection process, the respondent-department issued an order dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure P-8), thereby vanishing the mandatory requirement of PSTET-II for the post of Physical Education Teacher. However, the said decision was assailed by some of the candidates in the form of CWPs-18522 and 19528-2023. Accordingly, upon consideration of the issue in question, a Coordinate Bench allowed the writ petitions, thereby quashing the impugned decision to align with the terms and conditions of the advertisement, and also saddled the State authorities with a cost of Rs.50,000/-, vide order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure P-11).
Aggrieved by the said decision, not only the respondent-State, but also some of the candidates approached this Court by filing intra-court appeals. Eventually, a Division Bench, vide a common order dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure P-12), dismissed a bunch of three appeals, (LPA 670, 726 and 992-2024). As a consequence, the respondent-department issued a provisional select list for the post in question on 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-13). Simultaneously, the result of PSTET-II, owing to a dispute with regard to the correctness of answer key, was also the subject matter of challenge in a separate round of litigation in CWP-7518-2020, and other connected cases. Consequently, the learned Single Judge, vide an order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-14), disposed of the cases, with a direction to the competent authority to adopt a practical approach, upon receipt of a report from the expert committee, and take appropriate steps in the matter.
Thereafter, the authorities, in terms of the report of expert committee, revised the result of PSTET--II, and this time, the petitioner was granted 90 marks, and was declared pass in the month of February, 2024 (Annexure P-15). Having armed with the revised result, she was satisfied that she would be offered appointment, but to no avail. Thereafter, she approached this Court by way of CWP-24114-2024, which was disposed of, vide order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-16), with an observation that in the event, any representation would be made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by passing an appropriate order within eight weeks. In deference thereto, the impugned speaking order has been passed, vide which, her claim has been rejected, as she failed to appear for scrutiny of documents on the designated dates.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of the revised result issued in the month of February, 2024, the petitioner was declared successful in the PSTET-II examination. In this backdrop, she ought to have been extended the benefit of the PSTET-II from the initial stage, i.e. from the date of advertisement, as it was an error on the part of the authorities. Therefore, the impugned action resorted to by the respondent-department, thereby overlooking the legitimate claim of the petitioner, is apparently preposterous, and is liable to be struck down.
On the other hand, learned State counsel averred that it is a matter of record that through various Public Notices, the candidates were called uponon for scrutiny of original documents, but the petitioner opted not to appear. Further, though the petitioner, at the time of submission of the application, did not possess the qualification of PSTET-II, she, at least, could come present to meet with the requirement of scrutiny of documents, and only thereupon the authorities would have been in a position to take any decision as regards her eligibility.
As regards the plea of having been declared passed in PSTET-II examination, in the light of the order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-14), it was argued that the appointment letters to the selected candidates were issued much prior to the revision of the result in the month of February, 2024. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim the benefit of revision of result, retrospectively.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of revised result of PSTET-II examination.
To fortify the abovesaid opinion, it would be expedient to have a reference of the note appended to the advertisement:
“Important Note:-
Educational/Professional Qualifications of the candidates on or before the last date of applying for the Certificate (sic). Certificates of various categories like SC/ST, Handicapped and other required certificates etc. will be admissible after submitting/checking the certificates etc. at the time of scrutiny for availing the benefit of reservation. No request from any candidate will be entertained after the scrutiny process is over.”
A bare perusal of the abovesaid condition unambiguously mandates that the candidates intending to participate in the selection process should have possessed the requisite qualifications, including PSTET-IIII, on or before the last date of submission of the application. It is a conceded position that she did not possess the qualification of PSTET-II, at the time of submitting her application. Further, it is also an admitted fact that she was declared successful in the examination only in the month of February, 2024, as demonstrated above, i.e. much after the last date. In such circumstances, the subsequent revision of the result cannot relate back to the relevant date to confer eligibility upon the petitioner.
It is a trite law that terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct, and cannot be subjected to alteration midway through the selection process. Thus, the conditions to be eligible for every candidate, in terms of the advertisement, must necessarily be satisfied as on the cut-off date of submission of applications, and cannot be amended, in any manner, to the suitability of one candidate. In the instant case also, as demonstrated above, all the candidates were required to have equipped with requisite qualifications/certificates on or before the last date.
In relation to a somewhat similar situation, as this Court is faced with in the matter at hand, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India & Ors., 1993(2) S.C.T. 77: held as under: -
"It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date."
Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, 1997(2) S.C.T. 123 : (1997) 4 SCC 18,a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further elucidated the tenet in the manner given below:-
"The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a wellestablished one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment."
Not just that, while delivering a path breaking verdict in Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2013(4) SCT 543, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken note of catena of celebrated pronouncements on the subject in issue, including the above referred decisions, and has authoritatively expressed that the Courts are not under any obligation to validate the unfounded claim of the applicants/petitioners, who had responded to the advertisements, being fully conscious of their ineligibility as on the last date for submission of forms:-
17.It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement. There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance.”
Having due regard to the aforesaid settled position of law, and as learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any extraordinary circumstance or distinguishing feature in the present case warranting interference by this Court, the instant petition is dismissed.