Dismissed

Raminder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2018LPA/12/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nine-Judge intra-Court appeal wherein the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against a judgment refusing appointment due to late submission of a mandatory certificate required to claim reservation benefits for dependants of ex-servicemen, upholding the strict adherence to cut-off dates.

What did the court decide?

Appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits; impugned judgment refusing appointment stands upheld.

Raminder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

LPA No. 12 of 2018 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 17. 09. 2018

Rami nder Kaur

…. . Appel l ant

ver sus

St at e of Punj ab and anot her

¶7

. . . . . Respondent s

¶8

CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE

¶9

Pr esent : Mr . B. D. Shar ma, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant

¶10

KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE ( Or al ) :

¶11

We condone t he del ay of si x days i n f i l i ng t he appeal f or t he r easons st at ed i n CM- 21- LPA- 2018 and appl i cat i on st ands di sposed of .

¶12

Thi s i nt r a- Cour t appeal has been f i l ed under cl ause X of t he Let t er s Pat ent by t he pet i t i oner chal l engi ng t he j udgment and or der of t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge dat ed 29. 09. 2017 di smi ssi ng her wr i t pet i t i on seeki ng a r el i ef of cer t i or ar i t o quash t he or der dat ed 14. 02. 2013 r ej ect i ng her cl ai m f or appoi nt ment t o t he post of Lect ur er i n Bi ol ogy under t he dependant of Ex- ser vi cemen cat egor y. Par i t y was al so cl ai med wi t h t wo ot her si mi l ar l y si t uat ed candi dat es Mamt a Rani and Jaswi nder Si ngh.

¶13

Admi t t ed f act s ar e t hat pet i t i oner - appel l ant appl i ed f or t he post of Lect ur er i n Bi ol ogy under t he cat egor y of dependent of Ex- ser vi cemen i n r esponse t o an adver t i sement i ssued on 23. 09. 2009 by t he Punj ab St at e Educat i on Depar t ment . Last dat e f or submi ssi on of appl i cat i on f or ms was 09. 10. 2009. The r equi si t e cer t i f i cat e t o

¶14

PARKASH CHAND 2018.09.20 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

LPA- 12- 2018

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

demonst r at e t hat she f el l under t he cat egor y of dependent of Exser vi cemen, admi t t edl y, was not accompanyi ng t he appl i cat i on made by her . The pet i t i oner - appel l ant obt ai ned t he sai d cer t i f i cat e on 11. 11. 2009 af t er t he l ast dat e f or submi ssi on of appl i cat i on f or ms was over and deposi t ed t he same t her eaf t er . The r espondent - aut hor i t i es, f i ndi ng t hat t he cer t i f i cat e has not been pr oduced as r equi r ed by t he t er ms and condi t i ons on t he l ast dat e of maki ng appl i cat i on, t r eat ed her case i n t he open cat egor y and, si nce t he mar ks secur ed by her wer e l esser t han t he l ast candi dat e sel ect ed, she was not gi ven appoi nt ment .

¶18

The case set up bef or e t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge was t hat even t hough t he val i d cer t i f i cat e cl ai mi ng benef i t of r eser vat i on was f ur ni shed af t er due dat e st i pul at ed i n t he adver t i sement t he condi t i on was al ways l i abl e t o be r el axed and ever y i nf r act i on of pr escr i bed condi t i on r el at i ng t o submi ssi on of pr oof need not necessar i l y r esul t i n r ej ect i on of appel l ant ’ s appl i cat i on. The ar gument cl ai mi ng par i t y wi t h t he case of Mamt a Rani and Jaswi nder Si ngh who wer e gi ven appoi nt ment l et t er s i n i dent i cal ci r cumst ances was al so r ai sed.

¶19

The l ear ned si ngl e Judge f i ndi ng t hat t he wr i t pet i t i on f i l ed by cer t ai n i dent i cal l y si t uat ed candi dat es bei ng CWP No. 5560 of 2011 ( Jaspal Kaur and ot her s vs. St at e of Punj ab and ot her s ) was di smi ssed by t hi s Cour t vi de j udgment and or der dat ed 02. 11. 2011, r ef used t o i nt er f er e i n t he or der i mpugned i n t he wr i t pet i t i on dat ed 14. 02. 2013. The par i t y cl ai med by t he pet i t i oner - appel l ant wi t h Mamt a Rani and Jaswi nder Si ngh was al so deni ed by t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge af t er havi ng f ound t hat t hei r appoi nt ment s have subsequent l y been cancel l ed by t he r espondent - aut hor i t i es.

¶20

PARKASH CHAND 2018.09.20 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

LPA- 12- 2018

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

The publ i c not i ce i ssued by t he r espondent s r equi r ed t he candi dat es t o pr oduce t he r el evant document s on t he dat e f i xed t o demonst r at e t hat t hey f ul f i l l al l t he pr escr i bed condi t i ons of appoi nt ment . Thus, t her e was a cut - of f dat e. The cut - of f dat e pr escr i bed i s sacr osanct and t her e i s a pur pose at t ached t o i t . I t i s wel l set t l ed t hat r ecr ui t ment t o publ i c ser vi ce shoul d be hel d st r i ct l y i n accor dance wi t h t he t er ms of t he r ecr ui t ment r ul es, i f any. Devi at i on f r om r ul es al l ows ent r y t o i nel i gi bl e per sons on one hand and on t he ot her hand depr i ves ot her si mi l ar l y si t uat ed per sons who ar e el i gi bl e i n al l r espect s on t he cut - of f dat e. Thi s woul d r esul t i n compl et e ar bi t r ar i ness and, t hus, woul d be vi ol at i ve of Ar t i cl e 14 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a.

¶24

An adver t i sement or not i f i cat i on i ssued/ publ i shed pr escr i bi ng condi t i ons f or appoi nt ment const i t ut es a r epr esent at i on t o t he publ i c and t he aut hor i t y i ssui ng i t i s bound by such r epr esent at i on and i t cannot act cont r ar y t o t he same. The admi t t ed f act ual scenar i o i n t he case i n hand i s t hat on t he cut of f dat e t he appel l ant - pet i t i oner was not possessi ng t he r equi si t e Li neal Descendant Cer t i f i cat e f or bei ng consi der ed under t he dependant of Ex- ser vi cemen cat egor y and, t hus, she cannot be hel d t o be el i gi bl e f or bei ng consi der ed f or appoi nt ment under t he sai d cat egor y.

¶25

I n vi ew of t he undi sput ed f act ual posi t i on and t he set t l ed l egal posi t i on on t he i ssue, no except i on can be t aken t o t he r ej ect i on of t he candi dat ur e of t he appel l ant - pet i t i oner . Lear ned Si ngl e Judge has r i ght l y di smi ssed t he wr i t pet i t i on and we do not f i nd any er r or i n t he i mpugned j udgment whi ch may r equi r e i nt er f er ence.

¶26

PARKASH CHAND 2018.09.20 13:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

LPA- 12- 2018

¶28

- 4 -

¶29