Kiran v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP-25814-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25814-2024 Date of Decision: 04.10.2024 Kiran

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. P.K. Chugh, Advocate, and Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, and Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for respondent -HPSC *** TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the revised result, dated 30.09.2024, Annexure P-16, for the post of PGT History on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to be selected for the post instead of the fourth respondent, under unreserved category, in response to advertisement 13/2019, 32/2022 and 28/2023.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the fourth respondent was selected for the post in Mewat cadre. Later, pursuant to revision of result vide notice dated 30.09.2024, she was again recommended for appointment in Rest of Haryana cadre. This could not have been done after the fourth respondent having joined in Mewat cadre. The petitioner has scored forty-seven point nine (47.9) marks in the selection, which are equivalent to those of the last selected candidate, who has been recommended for appointment only on account of being elder in age. Accordingly, she should have been recommended for appointment in place of the fourth respondent. PAYAL 2024.10.16 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-25814-2024 -23.

Learned counsel appearing for the Commission, on instructions from Mr. Pankaj, Assistant, contends that although the fourth respondent was initially recommended for appointment against a Mewat cadre post, she approached the Commission for correction of result on the basis of her marks fifty point forty (50.40) being more than those of the last selected candidate in the Rest of Haryana cadre for which she had given the first preference also. On re-examining her result, it was discovered that due to inadvertence despite being more meritorious, she had been recommended in Mewat cadre. Correcting the mistake, result was revised vide impugned notice dated 30.09.2024, recommending her against a post in Rest of Haryana cadre on merit. 4.

Heard.

5.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the recommendation of fourth respondent to Rest of Haryana cadre has been made by the Commission on the basis of merit, on realising its inadvertent mistake. Besides, it remains undisputed that she has scored more marks than those of the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned revision of result to recommend the fourth respondent.

6.

Dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 04.10.2024 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2024.10.16 09:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment