Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Chaudhary vs Haryana Public Service … on 13 September, 2011

                         Civil Writ Petition No.17091 of 2011
                         Date of Decision: September 13, 2011

Sunita Chaudhary


Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula



1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:    Mr.Sailender Singh, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.



The petitioner qualified in M.A. (Final) English
Examination in May, 2002. In November, 2009, she appeared in M.A.
(Final) History Examination conducted by Himachal Pradesh
University, Shimla. Result was declared on 17.5.2010 and the
petitioner secured 56.1% marks. Respondent-Haryana Public Service
Commission had issued an advertisement on 28.10.2009 inviting
applications for different categories of posts, including the post of
Lecturer in History. Total 15 posts were so advertised. The essential
qualification was Postgraduate degree with 55% marks. On
28.1.2010, Commission issued a corrigendum inviting applications
by 23.2.2010 as the posts had been increased. The petitioner applied
for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History. Commission issued
yet another corrigendum on 26.7.2011 making those candidates who
had registered Ph.D. on or before 31.5.2009 to be eligible even if
they had not qualified in NET/SLET examination. The petitioner
Civil Writ Petition No.17091 of 2011 :2:

applied for appointment after clearly intimating that she has not
passed on 23.2.2010, but had appeared in the
examination. The petitioner’s candidature was considered and
ultimately has been rejected on the ground that she was not having
essential qualification by the last date, i.e., 23.2.2010. The petitioner
accordingly has filed this writ petition raising number of grounds to
challenge this action of the respondent-Commission.

First submission is that the petitioner did not conceal
anything from the Commission. The counsel then submits that the
examination was held in November, 2009, but the result was
declared in May, 2010. On this basis, it is pleaded that the petitioner
should be deemed to have passed the examination during session
2007-2009 and delay in declaration of result should not prejudice the
case of the petitioner. Submission also is that the exemption granted
to those candidates, who had registered for Ph.D., should equally
apply to those who are enrolled in M.A. and this would make the
petitioner eligible for consideration for appointment.

I am not inclined to accept the line of submissions as
made by the counsel for the petitioner. M.A. is the basic eligibility
qualification, whereas the exemption from SLET or NET can not be
equated with essential qualification. Even earlier, exemption was
available to those candidates from requirement of passing SLET or
NET, if they had done Ph.D. Now this exemption is extended to those
who are registered for Ph.D. on or before 31.5.2009. These two
situations cannot be equated. Since the petitioner was lacking in
basic qualification by the cut off date, she certainly cannot be held
eligible for submitting an application for appointment. No case for
interference is made out.


September 13, 2011                             ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh                                              JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.186 seconds.