Suman Dahiya v. State Of Haryana And Another
1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (102) CWP-9268-2018 (O&M) Date of decision :- 03.05.2023 Suman Dahiya
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CWP-6468-2018 (O&M) Date of decision :- 03.05.2023 Munni Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Ms. M.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-9268-2018).
None for the petitioner (in CWP-6468-2018).
Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1 (in both the cases).
Mr. Shobhit Rapria, Advocate for Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2-HPSC (in both the cases). Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for applicants-proposed respondents No.3 to 13 (in CM-5889-CWP-2018).
...
SUVIR SEHGAL, J (ORAL) 1.
This order shall dispose of both the above mentioned writ petitions as the short controversy in both the matters, is the same. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP9268-2018.
22.
Instant petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the final list dated 08.03.2018, Annexure P-5, to the extent the roll number of the petitioner has been excluded. 3.
Vide Advertisement No.01/2015 dated 19.06.2015, Annexure P-1, and Advertisement No.7/2015 Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HPSC)-respondent No.2, invited online applications for 380 posts of Multi-Purpose Health Worker (MPHW) Female for Health Services and ESI Healthcare in Haryana. Petitioner applied for the post in the general category and cleared the written test. She was called for interview, but her roll did not figure in the final result declared on 08.03.2018, Annexure P-5. Claiming that her roll number has been replaced by the candidates from other categories, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the final result. 4.
Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by HPSCrespondent No.2, by filing a short reply, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has scored 114 marks in the written test and 10 marks have been awarded in the interview. Her total score is 124 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the general list, has scored 130 marks. It has been submitted that as the petitioner does not come in the zone of the selection, her roll number was not mentioned in the impugned final result.
5.
Stand taken by HPSC-respondent No.2 in the connected writ petition, viz., CWP-6468-2018, has also been examined, although, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. HPSC-
3respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner has scored a total of 126 marks and she does not meet the cut off. Still further, it has been submitted that the candidates belonging to the reserved category, who have scored more marks than the cut off marks in the general category, have been included and considered in the general category.
6.
In view of above, considering the stand taken by HPSCrespondent No.2 and the individual final results of both the Petitioners, there is no merit in both the writ petitions. 7.
Writ petitions are dismissed.
8.
As the main cases have been decided, all the pending applications stand dismissed.
(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 03.05.2023 Pardeep Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No