High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25847/2018allowed

Lalita v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2022-03-22Mr. Justice Arun Monga9 pages

!"# $% #&'('$)* + ,+

* - . +

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana.

ARUN MONGA, J.

Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the action of the respondents for not publishing the result showing the merit and marks of the persons selected for the post of Multipurpose Health Worker-MPHW (Female) advertized vide Advt. No.1/2015 dated 19.06.2015 in the leading newspapers and to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner if she comes within the zone of selection w.e.f. the date the other selected candidates for the same post. 2.

Respondent No.2-department issued an advertisement No.1/2015 published on 19.06.2015 inviting applications for various posts including 300 posts of MPHW(Female) Category 9. The petitioner being fully eligible and qualified as per the qualification prescribed under the Rules and as mentioned in the advertisement submitted her application. On receipt of admit card, the petitioner appeared in the written test on 22.01.2017. On the basis of written test, respondent No.2 declared the result on 09.05.2017 wherein the roll number

of the petitioner was shown in the result. However, respondent No.2 did not disclose the proper merit list with marks of the selected candidates. The petitioner in pursuance to the result appeared before the scrutiny committee on 23.05.2017 for scrutiny of her documents. After scrutiny of documents of the successful candidates, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 14.02.2018, whereby candidates equal to twice the number of vacancies had been called for interview/viva-voca. The notice further provided that the marks of the last shortlisted Economically Backward Person in General Castes category (EBPG) were 60. However, the name of the petitioner was not shown in the list of successful candidates though she was sure about her good performance. The petitioner immediately approached respondent No.

2 to disclose her marks and the marks obtained by other candidates but no response had been received from them and ultimately respondent No.2 declared the final result (Annexure P-9) on 08.03.2018 of all the categories except the EPBG category against which the petitioner had applied. On 18.07.2018, respondent No.2 declared the result of the withheld category of EBPG but had not declared the result (Annexure P-13) for the post meant for EBPG-OH (Orthopedically Handicapped) i.e. 1 post, which means that no candidate was found eligible and post remained vacant. The petitioner sought information from the respondent-department and in response thereto the respondent-department replied that the details of all the candidates will be uploaded shortly on the website of the Commission.

When no details of the candidates were uploaded, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 06.08.

different heads in the written test and further requested the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment. 3.

On 08.10.2018, the following order was passed by this Court:-

# $%& &'%()%*(&+% ,

- .

'( 0 % 1 &2%(*%*(&3 ,. 4 3/

#-% -#/

/ -

#- !#

)( 0 %

! &3%(5%*(&3 ,. 4&6% !#

" #

% $ &2%(&%*(&'% 7 / ! # "

#-%8 4.

On 02.12.2021, the following order was passed by this Court:- ` " &6%&(%*(*&/

! !

# 9/ -

0 :,;% 7 #

33 0 - .

/ &) 0 .

&( 0

#- - &&2 0 % <

" - =!

" "

,. 42%

') 0 - - 0

)(% ,

! # !

! -"

> % 9 - / =

#% ,> &'%(&%*(**% -/ ! 0 # "/ !> #

" ! # !

"/ . %8 5.

Thereafter, reply was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 by way of affidavit of Bharat Bhushan, Under Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula. As per the reply, the candidate claiming reservation under OH category is not required to deposit any fee. Thus, a candidate who applies under OH category did not deposit any fee and therefore the claim of the petitioner to consider her for the post which is meant for main category EBPG is not valid and it will amount to injustice to those candidates who have applied under EBPG category and have paid requisite fee. Further, it is mentioned that the petitioner had filed the present writ petition on 01.10.2018 and the petitioner claimed her candidature to be considered under EBPG category only after declaration of final result of EBPG on 18.07.

2018 and not during the time of scrutiny of documents, publication of interview notice and the declaration of partial result dated 08.03.2018. Further, it is mentioned that candidate, namely, Meenakshi Bala bearing Roll No.22116814, applied under EBPG category, has secured total 102 marks and the last selected candidate in EBPG category has secured 96 marks. However, the petitioner has obtained lesser marks i.e. 88 marks and the cut off for the PH-OH category was 90 and therefore, as the petitioner was shortlisted under EBPG (OH) category, she was considered under that category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the action of the respondents in not publishing the result showing the merit and marks of the persons selected for the post of MPHW (Female) in the leading newspapers is in clearly in violation of judgment of this Court dated 22.05.2014 passed in CWP No.2201 of 2014, titled as Vikas Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-13-A) and judgment dated 26.05.1997 passed in CWP No.6983 of 1997, titled as Balbir Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others. 7.

In backdrop of the aforesaid facts, a short controversy warranting adjudication before me is whether the action on the part of the respondents in not publishing the result of the participating candidates in the selection process and being non-transparent inasmuch as withholding of the entire merit list and non-disclosure of the individual marks of the selected candidates amounts to arbitrariness and thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8.

Consequential adjudication warranted by this Court is also whether the respondents are justified in verbally rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being invited for interviews and the subsequent recruitment process without non-disclosure of her marks in the written examination and without any other plausible reasons, particularly in view of her having obtained information qua her written examination which reflects that she had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the category she had applied. In this context, reference may be had to an order dated 08.10.2018 (supra) passed by my Learned Sister Ritu Bahri, J. (then seized of the matter). ,

! #! $ % & %&'!(

&% ) !

!+, 7 /

" ? @ %&6 4 -

# A

" ? " % < #

# -

B4 /1+

!"#2$13 $%

$("

#)#1!4 /5 5/ 5 &!)6'6!"#(

$% !13!)!

/"!"# $)43 !4#5

#7!4#

#7!4# $%

!13!)!

1#('6#)"

$)43

!4#

#7!4#

& #

- & . &/%, /, 0/, &1, &%%, /%, /, &0, $

$ 23,

$4 -# < /

" "

" # - >

- #

? % / " ;! 9%8 && )$ 4 256$ $$ *$

"! 4 *!

! +, '% < - ?

! @ $%**&&)3&2

" ! - % 7 / #

! @ $%**&&)3&2

&(* 0 )) 0

0 - .

C *( 0 #-C&) 0 .

" )( 0

') 0 % </

! @ $%**&&)3&2 -

%8 & 4 $

$ ! !

4 #44 $

$ 3

9 #! 4 5 )!!

6: ;

#<- %& %&= $$ $ 3

"! $!$ #44 +, 7 #- !#/ !

! / "/

- #

/ - ! !

% < - @ 7 , / *((+ - -

/ "

"/ !

% < -

!" 0 - - !

! % , !#/ ==9 =<=

# "

- *)%(2%*(&2

!" 9/ #-

!#/

=9 " - *)%(2%*(&2 -

- -0 "% < -

" - # ! !" =9 - # ! / *(&2 - %

< =9/ ==9 =<=

- #

= 2 *((+ , - !

" D

" -!

% <

*)%(2%*(&2 !

% , -

/ ,#

/ ! - -% < -

! !

" -!

# *)%(2%*(&2 ! # ! -!

-0 -

" - % 7

? - ! - !

=9/ ==9 =<=

! !"

-% 7

" -!

! # *)%(2%*(&2/ - !

9%8 &0 -

!! $

#! #44 !$ ! $

$!$

4 $! $9 $ 4 $4

3$ >

#! !

$ #! !

! $

$ $ !

4 !4 !!$$!

$! 4 $!$ #44 #!

!$ &= ?! $ 4

> $

4 #!

4 *$

4 $9 4

$ 4 &0, "!

4 $ $ $ #44

7 !$ $! $

$44

$ !

$"!$

! $ $ $ &/ @ 4

$ ! 4

:< '74 (

$"!

$ 4 $ $ $

March 22, 2022 ( ARUN MONGA ) ashish JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No