Saneh Lata vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the grievance/objections of the petitioner and change the category of the petitioner from General to EWS Category and thereafter, to give marks to the petitioner over the objection already asked/put by the petitioner over the Questions No.22, 27, 59, 61, 62 and 95 of the exam conducted on 30.04.2023 and to provide all other consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled under the advertisement No.2/2023 (Annexure P-1).

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner applied for the post of TGT Sanskrit pursuant to Advertisement No.2/2023 dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) and possessed valid EWS certificates issued by the State of Haryana for the years 2019-20 and 2021-22. Due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the computer operator, her application was inadvertently submitted under the General category instead of EWS category. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 30.04.2023 and also submitted objections with regard to Question Nos.22, 27, 59, 61, 62 and 95. The petitioner, thereafter, continuously approached respondent No.2 and submitted handwritten applications seeking correction of her category but no action was taken thereupon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the grievance portal was opened from 08.11.2024 to 14.11.2024, the petitioner could not submit her grievance due to a technical error on the portal and, thereafter, she also approached the office of respondent No.2, but could not obtain any receiving of her application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 08.09.2026 (Annexure P-6) along with EWS certificates but the same has also not been acted upon.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner is decided by respondent No.2/competent authority by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that the objection of the petitioner regarding the validity of aforesaid questions cannot be entertained at such a belated stage. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to change her category in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, (2005) 12 SCC 498. However, learned State counsel submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority for time-bound consideration and decision of the representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner by passing a speaking order.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2/competent authority.

Disposed of, accordingly.