Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And Others v. Ravinder Rai And ANR

LPA-3177-2024 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Sr. No.108 LPA-3177-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.02.2025 DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM AND OTHERS ..... Appellants

VERSUS

RAVINDER RAI AND ANR ..... Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH ****

Present:

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the appellants.

***** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.

Heard learned counsel at length.

2.

While this LPA is time barred by 190 days and we do not find any sufficient reason to condone the delay, at the same time we have also looked into the merits cursorily and find that the issue raised before the learned Single Judge as to what would be the relevant date for consideration of a qualification acquired by the individual, the learned Single Judge has held that it would be the date of passing of the examination. Admittedly, the concerned respondent had passed the four-year diploma in June 2012 and his result was declared, however the certificate was issued on 24.08.2012 referring to the result having been declared earlier. The appellant did not consider the said certificate only on the ground that the cut off date was 31.07.2012. Whereas, they prepared the ranking list on 24.06.2013, considering that the law is settled that a person would be held to have passed KAVITA NAIN 2025.02.27 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment

LPA-3177-2024 (O&M) a particular examination only when his result is declared and not when a certificate would be formally issued by the educational institution, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference, we therefore, dismiss this appeal both on ground of limitation as well as on merits.

3.

It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Council of Homeopathy System of Medicine, Punjab v. Suchintan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 99, where a candidate passed supplementary examination later and claimed his result to be from the date when the original result has been declared, the Apex Court held otherwise and directed that he will be treated to have passed the examination only when the result of the supplementary examined was declared, therefore the supplementary examination will not relate back.

4.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE 18.02.2025 Kavita Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KAVITA NAIN 2025.02.27 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment