Satpal vs State Of Haryana & Anr.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned action of respondent No.2-HSSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner verbally at the time of scrutiny of documents prior to interview as the petitioner had already availed the benefit of Dependent of Ex-Servicemen (hereinafter referred to ‘DESM’) category and as he had mentioned his category as DESM in application form by ignoring the fact that the recruitment process for the post of Clerk is a subsequent event. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2-HSSC to conduct the interview of the petitioner for the post of TGT English (Rest of Haryana) either in DESM (SC) category or in the SC category as the petitioner had secured more marks i.e. 96 marks than the cut off marks in both categories i.e. 76 marks in DESM (SC) category and 90 marks in SC category. Further, to dispense with the filing of certified copies of Annexures filed along with this writ petition and permitted to file true typed copies of Annexures and be permitted to pace on record photostat copies of Annexures. Costs of the writ petition be also awarded to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made that one post of TGT English (RoH) in the DESM (SC)/SC category be kept vacant for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of TGT (English) initiated pursuant to Advertisement No.9/2015 dated 23.07.2015 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner had applied under the DESM category in the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. He refers to the aforesaid advertisement and submits that the last date for submission of the online application form was 21.09.2015 and therefore, his eligibility is required to be determined with reference to the said cut-off date. The petitioner secured 96 marks out of 160 marks in the written examination, whereas, the cut-off marks for the last successful candidate in the DESM (SC) category were 76 marks and for SC category, it was 90 marks. Thus, the petitioner had secured marks substantially higher than the prescribed cut-off in his respective category. However, his candidature was declared ineligible on the ground that he had already availed the benefit of reservation under the DESM (SC) category.

Learned counsel submits that after initiation of the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 23.07.2015 (Annexure P-1), the Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued another Advertisement No.10 of 2015 dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-6 ) for 4425 posts of Clerk, wherein, the last date for submission of online applications was 06.01.2016 i.e. much after the last date prescribed under the advertisement for the post of TGT (English). Since the selection process for the post of TGT (English) was not concluded expeditiously, the petitioner, in the meantime, was selected pursuant to Advertisement No.10 of 2015 and was issued an appointment letter dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure P-7). He accordingly joined as a Clerk in the Office of District Employment Exchange, Jhajjar.

It is further submitted that respondent No.2, pursuant to the Advertisement No.9/2015, issued notice dated 27.04.2019 (Annexure P-8) to the candidates who had qualified the written examination requiring them to appear for scrutiny of documents prior to the interview scheduled for 08.05.2019 and 09.05.2019. The petitioner participated in the scrutiny of documents, however, he was informed orally that having already availed the benefit of reservation under the DESM (SC) category in the recruitment to the post of Clerk, he could not avail the said benefit for a second time. Consequently, his candidature was rejected despite his having secured marks higher than those obtained by the last selected candidate in the said category.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner requested respondent No.2-Commission to consider his candidature in his basic category i.e. SC (Haryana). The petitioner apprised the Commission that he had applied for the post of TGT (English) prior to applying for the post of Clerk. At that time, he was unemployed, hence eligible to avail the benefit of DESM (SC) reservation. It is submitted that the post of Clerk was advertised subsequently to the post of TGT (English). However, its result was declared earlier, for which the petitioner cannot be faulted. The petitioner also submitted a written representation dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-9) to respondent No.2-Commission seeking consideration of his candidature for interview but no response was received. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to resign from the post of Clerk, if appointed as TGT (English). He is, therefore, entitled to be considered for interview for the post of TGT (English) (Rest of Haryana Cadre) either under the DESM (SC) category or the SC category.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.227 of 2023 titled Rakesh Kumar Vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another, decided on 28.11.2023, wherein the appellant was directed to be appointed upon consideration of his higher merit in the BCB category. On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel submits that the petitioner, having secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the SC category, is also required to be considered for appointment against the said category.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner consciously participated in the selection process under the DESM (SC) category and availed the benefit of reservation thereunder. The benefit of such reservation can be availed only once in a lifetime. The petitioner, being an educated person, was well aware of the consequences of his choice. He further submits that having accepted the appointment to the post of Clerk pursuant to appointment letter dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was subsequently called for scrutiny of documents. During scrutiny, he was informed that he was not eligible to appear for the interview as he had already availed the benefit of reservation under the DESM (SC) category in the recruitment to the post of Clerk. Once the petitioner had accepted the appointment, his claim to avail the benefit of reservation under the DESM (SC) category in the subsequent selection stands dislodged.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. With regard to the benefit of reservation under the DESM category, the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana, vide letter dated 11.01.2001, issued guidelines stipulating that the said benefit can be claimed only once in a lifetime. The relevant guidelines are reproduced as under:

It is further submitted that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct and binding upon both the candidates and the recruiting agency. The advertisement contained a specific stipulation that no modification or request for change of category would be entertained after the prescribed cut-off date. The relevant portion of the advertisement is reproduced as under:

It is well settled that the terms and conditions contained in an advertisement are binding upon the candidates as well as the recruiting agency. A candidate who has consciously applied under a particular category cannot ordinarily seek alteration of the category after the last date prescribed for submission of applications, unless such alteration is permissible under the applicable rules or the terms of the advertisement.

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J&K Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad and others, (2005) 12 SCC 498, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a candidate having applied under a particular category cannot subsequently seek change of his status so as to claim the benefit of another category at a later stage of the selection process.

In the present case, the petitioner had consciously applied under the DESM (SC) category and subsequently, availed the benefit of reservation under the said category in the selection pursuant to Advertisement No.10 of 2015 for the post of Clerk. Having accepted appointment to the said post, he cannot seek to avail the benefit of DESM reservation again in the selection for the post of TGT (English). The fact that the petitioner had applied for the post of TGT (English) prior to applying for the post of Clerk or that he had secured marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the DESM (SC) or SC category, would not confer any right upon him to avail the benefit of DESM reservation for a second time. Consequently, the rejection of his candidature by respondent No.2 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

In view of the discussion above, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.