Seema v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on :15.04.2024 SEEMA .PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for respondent-HSSPP. Ms. Lishika Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No. 3. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the final result dated 10.09.2019 for the post of Assistant Block Resources Coordinator on the ground that the petitioner who had applied for the said post, has not been selected in the category of economically weaker section. The further prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner be considered under the category of economically weaker section for the post in question and appointment be granted to him.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the application form filled by the petitioner, the petitioner had applied for the

-22024:PHHC:050087 post in question in the category of the Ex-serviceman and not in the category of economically weaker section, hence, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been considered in the category of the economically weaker section is contrary to the claim made by the petitioner herself in the application form for the post in question.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 4.

It may be noticed that though it is prayed in the present petition that the result/selection for the post of Assistant Block Resources Coordinator be set-aside but no selected candidate has been impleaded as party in the present petition by the petitioner. Once, the candidates who are likely to be affected by the outcome of the present petition has not been made party to the present petition, no relief can be given to the petitioner. 5.

Even otherwise, it is conceded position that in the application form which is submitted for the post in question by the petitioner herself, she had applied in the category of ex-serviceman not in the category of economically weaker section.

Though, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to an inadvertent mistake, option of ESM category was filled in the application form for the post in question and the petitioner tried to correct the said mistake by filing an application prior to the last date of submitting the application form for the post in question, but, the respondents have rejected the said application.

6.

Rather, the respondents are on affidavit to say that the candidates were given an option to change their data in case, they have wrongly filled data in the application form for the post in question upto the last date of submitting the application form and concededly, no such fresh application was received from the petitioner so as to consider her claim under

-32024:PHHC:050087 the category of economically weaker section.

7.

Once, the petitioner has been considered in the category in which she had filled-up the application form for the post in question and the prior to the last date of submitting the application form, she had not corrected her category from Ex-serviceman to that of economically weaker section, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner in this regard. 8.

Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case recorded herein above, no ground is made out for interference in the present petition, hence the present petition stands dismissed. 9.

Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 15.04.2024 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No