Suman v. State Of Haryana And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:04.07.2019 Suman ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMIT RAWAL J.

Petitioner has not been successful in selection process initiated in pursuance to advertisement no.3/2018 dated 16.04.2018 whereby Haryana Teachers Selection Board, Panchkula advertised 1147 for filling up posts of Female Constable (General Duty). The qualification was that candidate must have passed 10+2 or its equivalent from a recognized educational Board/Institution.

The petitioner is stated to have passed B.A and M.A in Mass Communication and submitted an application for aforementioned post under General category well within period of time but inadvertently, filled up serial no.3 under the heading of Social Economic Criteria by showing 'NO' instead of 'YES' and could not attach National Credit Certificate (B). In fact, father of petitioner died before the age of 42 years, therefore, entitled to 5 marks. On coming to know of the aforementioned mistake, representation,

{2} Annexure P-4 was submitted. Respondent-Commission had issued admit card to the petitioner showing roll number as 3182070204 (Annexure P-5) for written test and also sat in the same. However, result was declared. Department short listed the candidates for Physical Screening Test. On comparison of OMR sheet with answer key, petitioner has scored 51.20 marks and 7 marks have been given to petitioner for B.A and M.A qualification, total 58.20 and as per his own assessment, he had scored 51.20 marks, whereas, last candidate has scored 58 marks in General Category. The benefit of 2 marks for NCC(B) and 5 marks under heading of Social Economic Criteria could not be granted. In such circumstances, petitioner would have scored 65.20 marks, much above the cut off, i.e., 58 marks in General Category. The final result was declared on 03.03.2019 (Annexure P-8).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner approached this Court immediately i.e.06.03.2019 and sought the correction of error as it was beyond the control. In fact, father of petitioner had expired before attaining the age of 42 years and the mistake i.e. not filling up form correctly and non-attaching of NCC was bonafidely and not malafide or intentional.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, appraised paper book and of view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Ms. Alisha Soni. A person who is having B.A and M.A qualification, does not deserve to be appointed as Constable, for, entire action of seeking correction in form is an after thought. The portal of Selection Commission

{3} duly accord sufficient time to aspirants to fill-up forms and deposit of fees. Once arrow from bow has been shot, it cannot be brought back and re-aimed at the target after arrow left its place or flown away. Since the final result had already been declared, it would be farcical exercise in putting the clock back, in case, such request is considered. The prayer does not fall within the judicial review to grant any indulgence. No ground for interference is made out.

Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 04, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No