Dismissed

Harpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Mar 2011CWP/4141/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application for a Demonstrator post. The Court held that basic qualification requirements could not be bypassed via later degrees, and allowing this would violate constitutional equality principles.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 was dismissed as it failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusion.

Harpal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 4141-CAT of 2011

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 4141-CAT of 2011 Date of Decision: August 24, 2011

¶5

Ashish Kumar …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for UT-Administration-respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported

¶13

in the Digest?

¶14

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶15

The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for setting aside impugned judgment dated 19.02.2003 (P-2) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') rejecting the claim of the original applicantpetitioner.

¶16

It is undisputed that the respondents issued an advertisement on 16.06.2002, inviting applications for the post of Demonstrator Physical Education (DPE). The essential qualification required for the said post is graduation with at least 45% marks. The petitioner has B.Com. degree with less than 45% marks. He has also a certificate of Bachelor of Physical Education (One year degree course) (P-5).

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP No. 4141-CAT of 2011

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that since he has post graduation degree of M.P.Ed. with 60% marks, he should have been considered eligible and his candidature should have been accepted. The Tribunal, however, rejected the aforesaid argument with the observation that once the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of being graduate with 45% marks, the higher degree of M.P.Ed. with 60% would not make him eligible. The Tribunal has noticed a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sant Ram v. State of Punjab, 1983(3) SLR 141, laying down that the persons possessing the higher qualifications would not be considered eligible if they did not possess the basic/ essential qualifications for the post.

¶20

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. It is true that the petitioner possesses a degree of M.P.Ed. with 60% marks, which he had obtained on 25.07.2002 (A-7) and the last date for receipt of the application was 22.07.2002. According to the well settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429 and Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 168 that the cut-off date for assessing the eligibility of a candidate would be the last date of receipt of the application. Admittedly, the petitioner would not be entitled for consideration of his degree of M.P.Ed. as it was obtained after the cut-off date. Therefore, the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Manjit

¶21

CWP No. 4141-CAT of 2011

¶22

-3-

¶23

Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2010 (4) RSJ 86 would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. We are further of the view that once an advertisement has been issued inviting applications with specific qualification then making the petitioner eligible on the basis of his degree in M.P.Ed. would result into complete change of the advertisement. Those who would become eligible by virtue of such a change would be deprived of their right to apply for the post. Therefore, such an approach would not be consistent with the requirements of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in its conclusion does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

¶24

As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶25

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶26

(GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE

¶27

August 25, 2011 Atul

Harpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Martin&Harris Laboratories Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Khazani Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Ajs Buldr. Ltd. & Aner Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amarjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mahender Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ratna Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana etc.