Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 15 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228-9 (Lead Case)
CWP-1262-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Pardeep Kumar and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
228-1
CWP-1902-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Manjeet Kumar and others ......Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
228-2
CWP-1078-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Kalpana Yadav ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-3
CWP-1130-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Priya ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
228-5
CWP-1235-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Priyanka ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
1 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
2
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
228-10
CWP-1297-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Mamta ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Haryana Public Service Commission and another ...Respondents
228-11
CWP-1331-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Anshul and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-12
CWP-1350-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Lalita and another ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-13
CWP-1405-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Poonam ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-14
CWP-1445-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Berkha ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
3
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
228-15
CWP-1450-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Aamir Suhail and others ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-16
CWP-1454-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Nachita ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-17
CWP-1486-2025(O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Pooja Yadav ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-18
CWP-1498-2025(O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Shabnam ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-19
CWP-1514-2025(O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Atul Kumar ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
3 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
4
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
228-20
CWP-1556-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Karuna ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-22
CWP-1615-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Neelam ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-23
CWP-1680-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Kalpana Yadav ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-24
CWP-1681-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Abhishek ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-26
CWP-1773-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Deepika ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
4 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
5
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
228-27
CWP-1785-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Promila Yadav ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-29
CWP-1939-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Anjaly and another ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-30
CWP-1981-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Minu Yadav ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-32
CWP-2073-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Surbhi ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
228-33
CWP-2149-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Himanshu and another ...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
5 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
6
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
228-34
CWP-2151-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Jyoti ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-35
CWP-2309-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Bharti Shakla ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-36
CWP-2316-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Vipin Singla ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-37
CWP-30312-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Neha Dhiman ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
228-38
CWP-35133-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Sonam Saini ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
6 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
7
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
228-39
CWP-2430-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Rashmi Yadav @ Rashmi Hiralal Yadav ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-40
CWP-2449-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Anuj ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
228-41
CWP-2615-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.02.2025
Bhanu Kumar Panchal ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1262-2025.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-2149-2025, CWP-1902-2025,
CWP-1939-2025 and CWP-2316-2025.
Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate and
Mr. Vikas Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-1450-2025.
Mr. Balraj Rathee, Advocate and
7 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
8
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Mr. Vinay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-1235-2025.
Mr. Sudhir Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-1785-2025.
Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-30312-2024.
Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1445-2025.
Mr. Bhupender Ghanghas, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1556-2025
Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1130-2025
Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Sunny Namdev, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-2615-2025.
Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-35133-2024
Mr. Vikram Rathore, Advocate and
Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1405-2025.
Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-2151-2025.
Ms. Mamta Saini, Advocate for
Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-2073-2025
Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1981-2025
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate,
Mr. Kendre Mani, Advocate and
Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1297-2025.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1681-2025
8 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
9
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Mr. Manuj Dhankar, Advocate for
Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1454-2025.
Mr. Shokeen S. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1331-2025,
CWP-1350-2025, CWP-1680-2025 and
CWP-2430-2025.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate with
Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate,
Mr. Viren Nehra, Advocate,
Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate and
Mr. Akash Gahlawat, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1615-2025.
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1498-2025.
Mr. Tej Pal Singh Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-1078-2025,
CWP-1486-2025, CWP-1514-2025 and
CWP-2449-2025.
Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate;
Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate;
Mr. Gurnoor Sandhu, Advocate;
Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate; for respondent-HPSC.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
(1) The prime question as to whether a Backward Caste Certificate
or EWS Certificate ‘defines/determines eligibility’ or is a ‘proof of
eligibility’ of a candidate arises for consideration before this Court in this
bunch of petitions alongwith the ancillary issue as to whether submission of
the updated/corrected document, pursuant to an option granted by the
respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC), would render a
meritorious candidate ineligible. The present batch of petitions is
9 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
10
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
accordingly being decided by a common judgment. For facility of reference,
facts are however being enumerated from CWP-1262-2025 titled as
‘Pardeep Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another‘ and
CWP-30312-2024 titled ‘Neha Dhiman Vs. State of Haryana and
another‘.
(2) Challenge raised in CWP-1262-2025 is to the Note 2(iii) of
Clause 6 of the advertisement dated 21.06.2024, prescribing a requirement
of submitting a caste/category certificate issued prior to the closing date of
advertisement on the ground that the same has no nexus with the object or in
determining eligibility. A further prayer has also been made for setting aside
of the letter/order dated 14.01.2025, sent by the respondent-HPSC to the
petitioner(s), rejecting their candidature on the ground that the
caste/category certificates submitted by them had been issued after the
closing date of the advertisement. A prayer has also been made for
directions to the respondent-HPSC to accept the said caste/category
certificate(s) submitted by the petitioner(s) and to allow them to participate
in the ongoing selection process under advertisement dated 21.06.2024.
(3) In so far as CWP-30312-2024 titled ‘Neha Dhiman Vs. State of
Haryana and another‘ is concerned, the issue therein is at a slight variance.
The petitioner therein had submitted an application for the post of Ayurvedic
Medical Officer and at the time of selecting an option between whether she
belongs to creamy layer or non-creamy layer, she inadvertently clicked
‘Creamy Layer’, whereas the certificate appended by her for claiming
benefit under the reserved category BC-‘A’ was of ‘Non-Creamy Layer’.
10 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
11
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
She immediately submitted a representation to the respondent-HPSC
requesting that on account of an inadvertence, she had selected her category
as ‘creamy layer’ instead of ‘non-creamy layer’ and that her claim is duly
corroborated by the BC-A non-creamy layer certificate, that had already
been appended. Her claim was however rejected by the Commission on the
ground that any change in the declaration/category furnished by a candidate
is impermissible, after the closing date.
Facts:
(4) The undisputed facts that emerge in the present case are that the
respondent-HPSC had issued an advertisement No.16/2024 dated
21.06.2024 for appointment to 805 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers
(AMOs) including 88 posts under the BC(A) category, 48 posts under the
BC(B) category and 81 posts under the EWS category. Since there is no
dispute pertaining to any other category, hence, the said breakup of
remaining vacancies need not be gone into. As per the advertisement so
published, the opening date for submission of online application was
22.06.2022 and closing date for submission of the same (closing date) was
12.07.2024. The said last date for online submission of application was
undisputedly extended to 20.08.2024 vide announcement dated 16.08.2024.
Some of the important terms as mentioned in the advertisement are extracted
as under:-
“1. CANDIDATES TO ENSURE THEIR ELIGIBILITY
FOR THE POST:
11 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071412
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases….. The eligibility of a candidate with reference to the
documents submitted by him/her is assessed only after the
candidate has qualified for the interview.
Note: The decision of the Commission with regards to the
eligibility of a candidate shall be final.”
xxxxxxxx
6. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
xxxxxxxx
Note 2:-
1. The eligibility of the candidate with regard to educational
qualifications, experience etc. shall be determined on the
Closing Date fixed for submission of online application
forms.
2. All applicants must fulfil the essential requirements of the
post and other conditions stipulated in the advertisement
on the Closing Date. They are advised to satisfy
themselves before applying that they possess at least the
essential qualifications laid down for the posts. No
enquiry asking for advice regarding eligibility will be
entertained.
3. The certificates/documents in support of educational
qualifications, experience, domicile, caste, category etc.
should be possessed by the candidates on or before the
Closing Date. The certificates issued after the Closing
12 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071413
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesDate will not be accepted by the Commission. The
qualification which is not claimed/mentioned by the
candidate in the online application form will not be taken
into consideration by the Commission.
xxxxxxxx
9. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS (NATIONALITY):
For this recruitment, a candidate must be either:-
(a) citizen of India, or
(b) a subject of Nepal, or
(c) a subject of Bhutan, or
(d) a Tibetan refugee who came over to India before 1st
January, 1962 with the intention of permanently settling
in India, or
(e) a person of Indian origin who has migrated from
Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, East African countries of
Kenya, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania,
Zambia, Malawi, Zaire, Ethiopia and Vietnam with the
intention of permanently settling in India.
Provided that a candidate belonging to categories (b),
(c), (d) and (e) shall be a person in whose favour a certificate
of eligibility has been issued by the Government of India.
A candidate in whose case a certificate of eligibility is
necessary, may be admitted to the examination but the offer of
appointment may be given only after the necessary eligibility
13 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
14
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
certificate has been issued to him/her by the Government of
India.
(emphasis supplied)
xxxxxxxx
11. RESERVATION:
xxxxxxxx
(iii) It is clarified that State Government has decided to
specify the criteria for exclusion of persons with the
Backward Classes as Creamy Layer, regarding
reservation in Service and Admission as per notification
No. 491-SW(1) 2021 dated 17.11.2021. Therefore, the
candidates belonging to BC-A/BC-B category of
Haryana are required to attach latest/updated Certificate
as per notification No. 491-SW(1) 2021 dated 17.11.2021
& Govt. instruction No. 22/132/2013-1GS-III dated
22.03.2022 (available on the website of C. S. Haryana
i.e. http://csharyana.gov.in) issued by the Competent
Authority during 2024-25 only.
(iv) Candidates who have in possession of OBC certificate.
The candidates are advised to submit BC-A/BC-B
certificate as per instructions detailed above.
xxxxxx
13. Certificate by the candidates belonging to Economically
Weaker Section (EWS) of Haryana:-
14 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
15
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(i) The candidates belonging to EWS category of Haryana
are required to attach necessary CERTIFICATE as per
Haryana Govt. Instructions issued vide No.22/12/2019-
1GS-III dated 25.02.2019 (Available on the website of CS
Haryana i.e. http://csharyana.sov.in) issued by the
Competent Authority.
(ii) The EWS certificates should be valid for the year 2024-
25 showing annual income of the family less than Rs. 6
Lacs.
16. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING
SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS:
xxxxxxxx
(iv) The application form will finally be submitted only after
paying the requisite application fee. After final
submission of application form, no change will be
allowed and no request for change of any particular(s)
in the online application form will be considered /
entertained by the commission at any stage.
xxxxxxxx
(ix) The application of the candidates, who do not fulfill the
qualifications/eligibility conditions on the Closing Date,
shall not be accepted by the online application system.
(x) Documents to be uploaded with Application Form:
xxxxxx
15 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071416
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
5. Scanned copy of BC-A & BC-B certificate should
be issued for the year 2024-25 as per Govt.
instructions dated 17.11.2021 & 22.03.2022.
6. Scanned copy of EWS certificate valid for year
2024-2025 as per Govt. instruction dated
25.02.2019.
xxxxxxxx
11. Scanned copy of Parivar Pehchan Patra (if a
candidate availing benefits of reservation).
(emphasis supplied)
(5) While the petitioner-Pardeep Kumar had submitted his
application under BC-A category (non-creamy layer); petitioner-Naveen
Kumar Dhiman had submitted his application under BC-B category (non-
creamy layer) and petitioner-Munish Kumar had submitted his application
under the EWS category.
(6) Adverting to the supporting documents appended by the
petitioner, attention is drawn to the backward class certificate issued by the
competent authority wherein apart from mentioning the certificate number,
the unique ID of the Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP) has also been mentioned
at the top. The said certificate had been issued by the competent authority to
the effect that the petitioner does not belong to the creamy layer, as per the
Haryana State Notification No. 491-SW(1) 2021 dated 17.11.2021. The date
of issuance of backward class certificate in favour of Himanshi (petitioner
16 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
17
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
No.15 in CWP-1262-2025) is 07.04.2023. The certificate appended by
Pardeep Kumar pertaining to his eligibility under the BC-A ‘Non Creamy
Layer’ is in reference to the State Government letter dated 07.06.1995,
09.08.2000 as well as 31.08.2010. Similarly, backward class certificate of
Samta Hamre (petitioner No.5 in CWP-1262-2025) also gives a specific
‘PPP’ number in relation to EWS category.
(7) The petitioners undisputedly cleared the screening test and were
to appear for the subject knowledge test, when they were served with a
notice by the respondent-HPSC vide letter dated 26.12.2024 (Annexure P-9)
informing that the candidature of the petitioner was provisionally found to
be liable for rejection, for largely similar reasons that the certificate of the
category appended by the petitioner did not conform with the requirements,
as published in the advertisement by the Commission, since compliance with
the instructions of 22.03.2022 had not been mentioned in the said backward
class certificate. The reason conveyed by the respondent-Commission is
extracted as under:-
“3. You are attached the certificate BCA category dated
31.12.2019 as per the Govt. letter No. 1170-SW(1)-95 dated
07.06.1995, 22/36/2000-3GS-III dated 09.08.2000 & No.213-
SW(1)-2010 dated 31.08.2010 whereas as per the clause 11 (iii)
of the advertisement, the candidature of BCA category is
required as per Govt. notification No.491-SW(1) 2021 dated
17.11.2021 & Govt. instruction No.22/132/2013-1GS-III dated
22.03.2022 during 2024-25 only.”
17 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
18
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(8) The candidates were granted an opportunity to submit a
representation against the proposed grounds of rejection of candidature. In
response thereto, the petitioners furnished the fresh certificates issued by the
competent authority. The relevant part thereof is extracted as under:-
“This is to certify that he/she does not belong to creamy layer
as per the Haryana State notification no.40/13/2024-1SW
dated 16.07.2024.”
(9) It is submitted that initially, the requirement prescribed by the
Commission was that the certificate ought to be in conformity with the
Government notification dated 17.11.2021 and instructions dated
22.03.2022. However, as the closing date for submission of the application
was extended to 20.08.2024 and in the meanwhile, the respondent-State of
Haryana had issued new instructions dated 16.07.2024, thus, the fresh
certificates issued by the respondent-authorities were as per the new
instructions, since the online portal would not issue any other backward
class certificate, other than as per the latest instructions issued by the
competent authority. He submits that notwithstanding the petitioners
submitting the specific certificates establishing that they fulfilled the
eligibility condition for the respective class under which they had submitted
their application, the candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the
Commission vide communication dated 14.01.2025 (impugned herein). The
operative part of the said communication reads thus:-
“Accordingly, Commission had provisionally rejected
your candidature and informed vide this office letter dated
18 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071419
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases26.12.2024 through Email. Further, you were also directed
you submit your representation if any latest on 03.01.2025 by
email, failing which it will be assumed that you have nothing
to say again sign if proposed rejection and your candidature
will finally be rejected.
In reference to this office letter dated 26.12.2024, you had
submitted your representation dated 26.12.2024 alongwith
which you have submitted the certificate of BCA category
dated 19.11.2024. Your representation has been considered by
the Commission and the same is rejected as your BCA
certificate dated 19.11.2024 has been issued after the closing
date i.e. 12.07.2024 and thus the same cannot be taken into
consideration in view of specific bar mentioned in Note 2 (iii)
appended to clause 6 of the advertisement.
Thus, your candidature is finally rejected. It is informed
that no further representation correspondence will be
entertained by the Commission in this regard.”
(10) Similar orders were also passed in other cases. Aggrieved
thereof, the instant writ petitions have been filed.
(11) Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court allowing the
petitioners to participate in the selection process, the respondents produced
the final result of the selection process in a sealed cover that has been
opened. As per the final result produced, the petitioners herein are otherwise
eligible to be recommended for appointment on the marks secured by them.
19 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
20
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Arguments of Petitioners:
(12) In the aforesaid undisputed factual scenario, the senior counsel
for the petitioners has argued as under:-
(i) That the advertisement prescribes that a candidate should
fulfill the eligibility before the cut-off date. He contends
that the BCA certificate required to be submitted by a
candidate was only a document as a proof of eligibility
and was not the eligibility. Besides, the eligibility
certificate issued is valid for a given financial year
irrespective of the date when such a certificate may be
issued. Hence, if a candidate is in a position to satisfy
that he/she fulfilled the requisite ‘non-creamy layer’
requirement for the given financial year, he/she should be
considered under the respective category under which the
application had been submitted. He further submits that
the non-creamy layer certificate for a given financial year
commencing from First of April every year to Thirty
First of March of the next year is issued on the basis of
income for the last three financial years. Since the
determinant factor for issuance of the non-creamy layer
certificate stands fixed, hence, the date of issuance of the
‘non-creamy layer’ certificate becomes irrelevant and has
the same validity irrespective whether it is issued on 10th
of April of the said financial year or is issued on 28th of
20 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071421
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesMarch of the next year. Its validity would cease after 31st
of March and a new ‘non-creamy layer’ certificate has to
be obtained; and
(ii) That as per the Important Note No.1, the eligibility of a
candidate with reference to the documents submitted by
him/her is assessed only after the candidate has qualified
for the interview. Further as per the eligibility conditions
(nationality) prescribed at Point No. 9 (in the
advertisement), the eligibility of the candidates belonging
to different nationalities mentioned therein was to be
verified before an offer of appointment. It is thus argued
that the closing date for submission of online applications
was thus not sacrosanct and even if a candidate failed to
furnish a proof of eligibility as on the closing date, it
would not stand in the way of the applicant being
considered for the said category;
(iii) That as per the backward class certificate appended by
the petitioner(s) alongwith the application, the unique
PPP number ID had been duly mentioned therein.
Attention of this court is drawn to B.C. “non-creamy
layer” certificate pertaining to one of the candidates,
which reflects the PPP number and specifically records
that the said certificate has been issued as per the
Haryana State Notification dated 17.11.2021 for the year
21 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
22
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
2023-24 and that the same was issued on 07.04.2023.
The same was found lacking only on the aspect of being
non-compliant of the instructions dated 22.03.2022
issued by the Government of Haryana, on the subject
matter regarding caste certificates including the
certificates for Scheduled Caste, Deprived Scheduled
Caste, Backward Class, Other Backward Class,
Tapriwas, Vimukt Jati and Nomadic tribe through the
Saral portal. He refers to Clause 4 of the said
Government Instructions, which reads thus:
“4. Further, it is directed that no Government
Department of Haryana shall obligate any Haryana
resident to submit caste related documents if he/she
provides PPN and his/her caste and caste category is
marked as verified in Family Information Data
Repository (FIDR).”
Referring to the above, he contends, that Government of
Haryana had notified all the departments including the Public
Service as well as the Staff Selection Commission, that in the
event a candidate attaches his PPP or gives the PP number, the
authorities or the department(s) shall not obligate such resident
to submit any other caste related proof. He thus submits that the
petitioners had mentioned their unique ID/PP number in the
application form and that all other details pertaining to their
22 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
23
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
caste as well as their eligibility criteria were automatically
available with the Commission. Hence, submission of the
backward class certificate was only a duplicacy of an
information, notwithstanding that the said information was
already available with the Commission;
(iv) That earlier the creamy layer income/wealth criteria had been
fixed @ Rs.6 lakhs per annum or assets of Rs.1 crore and that
the income limit had eventually been enhanced to Rs. 8 lakhs
per annum as per the new instructions. He thus submits that
once the petitioners were already fulfilling the criteria for
claiming benefit under the backward class ‘non-creamy layer’
category having their annual income below Rs.6 lakhs, they
were in any case complaint with the requirement of having an
income below Rs. 8 lakhs. Hence, it was only that the backward
class ‘non-creamy layer’ certificate was to be issued in a new
format. Thus, formatting of the certificate should not be made
as a basis for rejecting a candidate especially when there is no
dispute with respect to the eligibility otherwise on the closing
date;
(v) That the respondent-Commission itself issued a notice to the
candidates who had appended backward class certificate
pertaining to a different year or where the certificate was not as
per the format and granted them an opportunity to submit a
representation and for removal of defects, if any. Once the
23 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
24
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
petitioners had responded to the said requirement and furnished
fresh eligibility document in the proforma/format as prescribed
by the respondent-authorities, there was no occasion for
rejection of their candidature. The said act on the part of the
respondent-Commission amounts to defeating their own
decision of calling for representation by giving a show cause
notice to rectify the defects;
(vi) That the respondent-Commission, as a matter of practice and
practicality, has been adhering to the same principle uniformly
for all selection processes initiated at different points in time by
them earlier. Reference is also made to the selection process
pertaining to the Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) (referred to in
CWP-1902-2025) wherein under similar circumstances, the
notices were sent to the candidates conveying the reasons for
their tentative disqualification and that on the candidates
submitting their fresh certificates as per the requirement
prescribed, their candidature has been considered valid and
their names had been recommended by the respondent-
Commission for appointment. It is thus submitted that the
respondent- Commission cannot apply two different yardsticks
on the basis of different vacancies being advertised or the
process of selection initiated by them. The continued practice
that had been followed by the respondent-Commission for all
the selection process(es) undertaken by them creates a
24 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
25
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
legitimate expectation in favour of the applicant(s) as well, that
a similar opportunity of removing the technical defects shall
also be extended to them and that their candidature shall not be
rejected solely on that ground;
(vii) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further argues that the
petitioners have otherwise secured more marks than the persons
who are now likely to be recommended by the respondent-
Commission (due to the petitioners having been declared
ineligible), hence, equity as well as merit demands that the
petitioners should not be denied an opportunity of public
appointment on their own merit in their respective category,
solely on the account of certain defects especially when the said
defects or errors do not in any manner cast any aspersion or
doubt on the fairness of the process of selection. It is submitted
that the validity/genuineness of the documents submitted by the
petitioners remains unchallenged and unblemished. Hence, a
meritorious candidate should not be ignored by the respondent-
Commission to give preference to the persons lower in the
order of merit. The same would otherwise be in violation of
merit which governs public appointment.
(13) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have
further argued that a similar controversy came up before this Court in
relation to the selection process initiated by the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission for recruitment to Police services in the State. Similar condition
25 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
26
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
had also been incorporated in that advertisement except for the point of
difference being that there was no cut-off date for filing the BC certificate,
however, the issue as regards the submission of the BC certificate and the
cut-off date was decided by this Court in a batch of writ petitions including
CWP-17852-2024 tilted as ‘Naveen and others Vs. State of Haryana and
others‘ decided on 05.02.2025. The relevant extract reads thus:-
“2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of
public notices dated 14.07.2024 (Annexure P-5), 18.07.2024
(Annexure P-11), 21.07.2024 (Annexure P-12), 21.07.2024
(Annexure P-13) and 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-14) whereby
their candidature has been rejected in BC-A/BC-B Category on
the ground that they have submitted BC-A/BC-B certificate of a
date which is before the cut-off date i.e. 01.04.2023.
xxxxxxxx
4. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate submits that
impugned notices are bad on three counts namely: –
i. There was no cut-off date prescribed in the
advertisement, thus, respondent could not notify
01.04.2023 as cut-off date;
ii. Reservation is a substantial right conferred by
Constitution of India which cannot be abridged on
technical grounds;
26 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
27
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
iii. The petitioners along with application filed BC
Certificate of a date prior to 01.04.2023 and thereafter
submitted BC certificates of subsequent date, though
after last date of filing application, thus, there is
compliance of terms and conditions of the advertisement.
Elaborating his arguments, Mr. Patwalia submits that
advertisement required that every candidate shall submit his
fresh latest certificate. There was no cut-off date to submit the
certificate, thus, no cutoff date could be prescribed by the
respondent. The respondent, as per its whims and caprices as
well as after commencement of selection process introduced
01.04.2023 as cut-off date. In the absence of prescription of
date either in advertisement or the rules, the respondent had no
authority to prescribe cut-off date after commencement of
selection process. It is trite law that rules of game cannot be
changed after its commencement.
The petitioners were possessing BC certificates which
were issued prior to 01.04.2023. The said certificates were
uploaded while filing application. The petitioners claimed
reservation in BC category. In the State of Haryana, BC
certificate is linked with Parivar Pehchan Patra (for short
‘PPP’) issued by the State Government as per the Haryana
Parivar Pehchan Act, 2021 (for short ‘2021 Act’). As per the
27 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
28
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
said Act, a resident of Haryana may upload particulars of his
family which include names, address, caste, income, assets etc.
The competent authority verifies data submitted by the
applicant and on the basis of verification, a certificate bearing
Unique ID is issued. BC certificate is directly linked with PPP.
If any person applies for BC certificate, it is issued on the basis
of data available on the portal of Family Information Data
Repository (PPP). The petitioner(s) at the time of filing
application submitted BC certificates obtained from the portal
and information contained in the certificate was based upon
information of PPP. The petitioners after filing application and
on account of objection raised by respondent submitted fresh
BC-A/BC-B certificates which were also obtained from portal
and information contained in the certificate is based upon data
available for PPP.
A candidate belonging to Backward Class gets his status
by birth. On account of higher income, he may fall in creamy
layer, however, his caste does not change. The petitioners
undisputedly belong to BC Category. They along with
application form had uploaded BC certificate though it was
issued prior to 01.04.2023. Eligibility for reservation and proof
of eligibility are two different aspects. The petitioners belong to
BC Category, thus, their eligibility is undisputed. The
respondent is disputing date of proof of eligibility. The
28 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
29
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
petitioner(s) in the absence of clarity submitted BC certificate
as was available. Their financial status had not changed in the
subsequent certificate, thus, there was no difficulty to get
certificate of subsequent years, however, it was not submitted
on account of lack of clarity.
The respondent is relying upon first part of clause 6.5 of
the advertisement and ignoring second part of said clause. In
clause 6.5, it is clearly mentioned that in the absence of
submission of BC certificate, the status would be determined
from PPP. The petitioners have submitted BC certificate
inscribing Parivar Pehchan Patra Number (for short ‘PPN’).
The respondent as per advertisement was supposed to get
information from the official site of Family Information Data
Repository (PPP). The respondent in case of doubt could ask
the petitioners to submit certificate of subsequent years. The
respondent, as per its convenience, invited objections from
candidates and carried out changes in the advertisement and
selection process. If the respondent, for its convenience and to
remove its mistakes, could carry out corrections after
commencement of process, it could also permit petitioners to
submit BC certificate of a later date.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta and Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan,
Advocates submit that petitioners at the time of conducting CET
submitted their BC certificate. The advertisement was in
29 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
30
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
furtherance of CET. Only candidates who had qualified CET
were eligible to apply. The name of petitioners figured in the
merit list of CET. They had submitted BC certificate at the time
of exam. The respondent did not permit candidates to apply
across the board whereas result of CET was declared category-
wise and applicants to the extent of four times of advertised
posts were shortlisted in their category. In this way, the
advertisement in question was in continuation of CET. The
petitioners participated in the CET in their category and
submitted requisite certificates. No objection was raised by
authorities and the result was declared in their category. The
eligibility of every candidate qua their category settled as soon
as result of CET was declared and they fell within four times of
advertised posts.
The certificate of BC is directly linked with PPN.
Certificate of BC is downloaded from the official site of the
Government. An applicant is not required to furnish fresh
information at the time of getting fresh certificate whereas as
and when an applicant desires to get latest certificate, he has to
approach portal called ‘SARAL’ which is linked with the site of
PPP. The applicant gets certificate which is based upon
information available for PPP.
5. Per contra, Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Haryana and Ms. Dimple Jain, Deputy
30 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
31
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Advocate General, Haryana submit that as per advertisement,
the petitioners were duty bound to furnish fresh latest BC
certificate. Income and assets are linked with BC certificate. A
certificate which is meant for Central Government jobs cannot
be used for State Government jobs because income criteria of
State and Central Government is different. Certificate of
Scheduled Caste cannot be compared with Backward Class
because principle of creamy layer is not applicable in case of
SC/ST. In case latest BC certificate is not furnished, there are
all possibilities that a candidate may apply and succeed whose
income in last financial year has exceeded prescribed limit. The
status of BC certificate is not absolute whereas it is fluid and
variable. On account of change of income and assets of the
family, the status of a candidate within BC category with
respect to entitlement to benefits of reservation extended by the
State Government may change. The petitioners were duty bound
to upload their fresh latest BC certificate. There are different
clauses of the advertisement which mandate that a candidate
must possess certificate and upload it with his/her application
which is basis for claiming benefit of reservation. The said
certificate is required to be produced at the time of scrutiny. No
certificate can be considered at the time of scrutiny which was
neither uploaded nor was available at the time of filing
application. The terms and conditions of the advertisement were
31 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
32
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
quite clear and lucid. The respondent cannot act contrary to
terms and conditions of the advertisement. It is settled
proposition of law that terms and conditions can neither be
varied nor ignored. If the petitioners are permitted to
participate in the selection process, it would prejudice interest
of those who had submitted valid certificate or who had not
participated on account of lack of eligibility certificate.
01.04.2023 was considered as cut-off date because
advertisement No.6 dated 28.06.2024 was issued in
continuation of advertisement No.1 dated 12.02.2024, thus, BC
certificate issued post 31.03.2023 was valid.
xxxxxxxx
9. From the arguments of both sides and perusal of
advertisement, the following questions arise for the
consideration of this Court: –
i. Was there any cut-off date for filing BC certificate?
ii. Were petitioners bound to submit fresh latest BC
certificate along with application?
iii. Was respondent in the absence of latest BC
certificate duty bound to rely upon PPP?
iv. Could petitioners on account of non-submission of
fresh latest BC certificate be transposed to general
category?
xxxxxxx
32 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071433
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
13. The dispute primarily revolves around clause 6 of the
advertisement. For the ready reference, clause 6 of the
advertisement is reproduced as below: –
“6. Reservation:
6.1. Implementation of reservation policy, maintaining
reservation roster and earmarking of vacancies for
different categories comes under the domain of the
concerned departments and Commission has nothing to
do with the number of posts requisitioned under different
categories. Benefit of reservation to the persons of
reserved category will be as per Haryana Government
instructions contained in letter No. 22/10/2013-1GS-III,
dated 15.07.2014 and thereafter issued from time to time
upto the date of advertisement shall be applicable.
6.2. The short listing of candidates shall be done on the
basis of particulars filled in online application form for
which supporting documents shall be uploaded. As
candidates can update their particulars till closing date,
thereafter, no change of particular at any stage shall be
entertained. In absence of documentary evidence or
mismatch in claimed category and uploaded documents,
candidature of candidate shall be considered under
General category/Parent category, subject to his/her
fulfilling eligibility in General category/Parent category.
33 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071434
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases6.3. The benefit of reservation will be given only to
those SC/BCA/BCB/EWS and ESM candidates who are
bonafide resident of Haryana State and submit the
application against reserved category posts. As per letter
No. 22/88/96-3GS III dated 25.06.1997, if any
member/members belonging to Scheduled Castes/
Backward classes is/are selected in the open competition
for direct recruitment on the basis of their own merit,
they will not be counted against the quota reserved for
Scheduled Castes/Backward classes, they will be treated
as open competition candidates. However, such
candidates should fulfill conditions of eligibility
regarding age etc. as are meant for general category
candidates.
6.4 EWS certificate (valid for State of Haryana) on
prescribed proforma should be valid for the year in
which the candidates have applied for the posts as per
govt. instructions issued vide no. 22/12/2019-1GS-III,
dated 25.02.2019. EWS certificate issued for jobs in
Central Govt. will not be considered irrespective of
income mentioned in certificate.
6.5 The candidates belonging to BC-A/BC-B categories
should attach the fresh latest BC-A or BC-B certificate as
the case may be as per Haryana Government instruction
34 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071435
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesissued vide no. 22/132/2013-1GS-III, dated 22.03.2022
or his/her caste/category mentioned/ verified in Parivar
Pehchan Patra will be considered. OBC certificate
issued for jobs in Central Govt. will not be considered
irrespective of income mentioned in certificate.
6.6. The reserved category candidates belonging to
other States will be allowed to compete against the posts
meant for general category only and will be considered
as general category candidates.”
[Emphasis supplied]”
14. From the plain reading of clause 6.5, it is evident that
candidates belonging to BC category should attach fresh latest
certificate or Commission would consider caste/category from
PPP. There are different clauses in the advertisement which
provide that the candidate is required to upload documents
along with application and only uploaded
documents/certificates would be considered at the time of
scrutiny of documents. No certificate which is not uploaded can
be submitted at the time of scrutiny of documents. Relevant
clauses of the advertisement are reproduced as below: –
“7. Regulatory Framework
(i) EWS certificate as per Annexure I.
(ii) Qualifications i.e. degree, diploma, certificates,
experience and other terms & conditions of eligibility will
35 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071436
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesbe determined with regard to the last date fixed for
receipt of online applications also termed as closing date.
Important Guidelines:-
1. Proforma/Formats for certificates are available as
Annexure-I of this advertisement.
2. Claim of reservation etc., if any, shall be
admissible to those candidates only, who upload the
requisite valid original certificate along with their
application in support of their claim and are of Haryana
domicile.
3. The benefit of reservation will be given only to
those SC/BCA/BCB/EWS and ESM candidates who are
domicile of Haryana State.
4. The SC/BCA/BCB/EWS candidates are required to
upload SC/BCA/BCB/EWS Certificates duly issued by
competent authority with application form. The uploaded
documents issued before the last date of application shall
only be considered.
8. How to apply:
8.1. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
8.2. Apply online well in advance without waiting for
last date of submission of online application form. Before
submission of the online application, candidates must
check that they have filled correct details in each field of
36 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071437
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesthe form. A candidate may edit his/her application form
till the last date of submission of application forms i.e.
closing date. After closing date of application, no change/
correction/modification will be allowed under any
circumstances. Requests received in this regard in any
form like Post, Fax, Email, by hand etc. shall not be
entertained and shall be deemed to be rejected.
8.3. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
8.4. The hard copy of application form along with all
uploaded documents must be brought at the time when
called upon to do so by Haryana Staff Selection
Commission. Documents which have not been uploaded
shall not be entertained. However, HSSC may ask an
additional paper in support of already submitted
document for more clarity, if required.
8.5 & 8.6 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
8.7. Candidates who do not fulfill the
qualifications/eligibility conditions on cutoff date, their
application shall be liable to be rejected. All the
Certificates/Documents relating to educational
qualification/eligibility conditions & experience etc. will
be determined with regard to last date fixed to apply
online applications or as mentioned in the notification,
wherever applicable.
37 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071438
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
10. Documents to be uploaded with Application Form
(MANDATORY)
10.1. Scanned Copy of Essential Academic Qualifications and
Matriculation Certificate showing Date of Birth and
other relevant details.
10.2. Scanned Copy of SC/BCA/BCB/EWS/ESM certificate,
certificate for family member of ESM and
children/grandchildren of Freedom Fighters.
10.3. Scanned copy of Certificate supporting claims of
reservation/weightage/relaxation(s).”
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
11.7 All rules/instructions prevailing on cut-off date shall be
applicable.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
11.14 If any document is required to be renewed/reissued,
candidate must bring both old and new documents.”
14.1 From the perusal of above quoted clauses of the
advertisement, it is evident that every applicant was
bound to possess and upload BC Certificate to claim
benefit of reservation. If a candidate fails to upload a
document or certificate, it cannot be produced or
considered at the time of scrutiny of documents.
38 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
39
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
15. The advertisement was issued on 28.06.2024 and last
date for filing application was 08.07.2024. As per terms and
conditions of the advertisement, every candidate claiming
reservation was bound to upload his/her caste certificate. The
last date for uploading the application along with documents
was 08.07.2024 meaning thereby a candidate claiming
reservation was supposed to have requisite certificates latest by
08.07.2024. If he opts to file application before the last date, he
was supposed to have certificates by said date because in the
absence of possession of certificates, he could not upload those
certificates along with Application Form. Candidates belonging
to BC category were supposed to file BC certificate along with
Application Form. The format of certificate has been prescribed
in the advertisement read with instructions. BC certificate
available on SARAL Portal which is linked with PPP
incorporates annual income and discloses that candidate does
not fall within creamy layer. For the ready reference copies of
BC certificate and PPP are reproduced as below: –
“BC CERTIFICATE
Parivar Pechan Number: 4VKE6945
Certificate Number: HRBC/2024/63412
Government of Haryana
Backward Class Certificate
39 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071440
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesThis is to certify that Mr. NAVEEN son of xxxxxx in the
State of Haryana belongs to Kamboj Caste. This caste is
mentioned in the Backward Class Block “A” in Schedule
“I” to the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in
Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act,
2016 (15 of 2016).
xxxxxxxx
This is to certify that he/she does not belong to creamy
layer as per the Haryana State notification no.491-
SW(1)-2021 dated 17.11.2021.”
xxxxxxxx
HARYANA PARIVAR PEHCHAN PATRA
“Citizen Resource Information Department (CRID)
Family ID. – 4VKE6945 Print date:23.07.2024
Name of Head: District: Tehsil/city Village/Ward
Raj Kumar Sirsa Baragudha-BL Panjuana
Address: 52 Main Road VPO Panjuana Sirsa.
Family Income (Verified) 75000-100000
Name Father Mother DOB Relatio Age Mobile Aadhar Member Occupation Caste Is
Name Name n with Number Income Divyang
HOF
Wife
Asha Maya 11/02/1973 51Y xxxxxx3 xxxx 0 Housewife BC(A) N
Rani Mohan Bai 5M 076 xxxx
a Ram
12 9832
D
40 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
41
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Raj Munshi Jamna 01/01/1970 Self 54Y xxxxxx3 xxxx 75000- Farmer BC(A) N
Kumar Ram Bai 6M 076 xxxx 100000
22D 5769
Naveen Raj Asha 02/03/1998 Son 26Y xxxxxx6 xxxx 0 Student BC(A) N
Kumar Rani 4M 656 xxxx
21D 7095
Showing 1 to 3 of 3 entries
xxxxxxxx
16. From the perusal of above quoted BC certificate, it is
evident that it certifies that candidate does not belong to creamy
layer as per State notification dated 17.11.2021. The
notification dated 17.11.2021 prescribes limit of creamy layer.
The limit prescribed by State Government is different from limit
prescribed by Central Government. The limit has been modified
from time to time. For the purpose of advertisement in question,
the limit was Rs.6 lakh per annum. The notification dated
17.11.2021 is reproduced as below:
“Haryana Government
Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
Department
Notification
The 17th November, 2021
41 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071442
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesNo. 491-SW(1)-2021. In exercise of the powers conferred under
clause (d) of Section 2 and Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the
Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and
Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 (15 of 2016),
and in supersession of the Haryana Government, Welfare of
Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department,
notification No. 808-SW(1), dated the 17th August, 2016 and
the Haryana Government, Welfare of Scheduled Castes and
Backward Classes Department, notification No. 1282-SW(1),
dated the 28th August, 2018, the Governor of Haryana hereby
specifies the following criteria or exclusion of persons within
the Backward Classes as Creamy Layer as per Annexure
appended hereto.
DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORY TO WHOM RULE OF
EXCLUSION SHALL APPLY
1 2 3
I. XXXX XXXX
V. Income Test/Wealth Son(s) and daughter(s) of parents
Test Having gross annual income of
Rs. 6 lakhs or above.
OR
Possessing wealth above Rs. 1
Crore for a period of last three
consecutive years.
Explanation:
42 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
43
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Income from all sources shall be
clubbed to arrive at the gross
annual income."
17. The notification dated 17.11.2021 has been issued in
exercise of power conferred by Section 5 of Haryana Backward
Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational
Institutions) Act, 2016 (for short’2016 Act’). Section 5 of 2016
Act provides that no member of BC shall be entitled to
admission and job if he belongs to creamy layer. Section 5 of
2016 Act reads as: –
“5. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
no person belonging to the creamy layer of Backward
Classes shall be–
(a) considered for admission in educational
institutions against the seats reserved therein for
Backward Classes as specified in the Schedule; or
(b) entitled to claim reservation in or be considered
for appointment in services under the State against
the posts reserved for Backward Classes as
specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Government shall, by notification, after taking
into consideration social, economic and such other
factors, as deemed appropriate, specify the criteria for
43 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071444
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesexclusion and identification of persons belonging to the
Backward Classes as creamy layer.
(3) The criteria fixed under sub-section (2) shall be
reviewed every three years.”
18. In the advertisement dated 28.06.2024, it was prescribed
that fresh latest certificate should be submitted. The certificate
should be in terms of instructions dated 22.03.2022 issued by
the State Government. For the sake of convenience and better
appreciation of the issue, it would be useful to examine
instructions dated 22.03.2022. The relevant extracts of the same
are reproduced as below: –
“2. The Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act, 2021 provides for
the assignment of the Parivar Pehchan Number (PPN) as
a unique identifier number to each family. The database,
namely Family Information Data Repository (FIDR),
contains PPN along with corresponding information
generally required for determining eligibility for, or the
provision of any scheme, service, subsidy or benefit
provided/implemented by or on behalf of the State
Government/any Government agency/local authority.
State Government has been empowered under section 8 of
the Act to prescribe Parivar Pehchan Number (PPN) as a
requirement for the purpose of determining above
mentioned eligibility or provision. The verified
44 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071445
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesinformation linked with PPN available in Family
Information Data Repository (FIDR) has now made it
feasible to issue Caste Certificates over the counter
through the SARAL portal.
3. In view of the above, Government has decided to issue
revised instructions/guidelines in supersession of all the
previous instructions issued till now, as under:-
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
(xiii) Validity of a Caste Certificate: –
(i) A Caste Certificate once issued (in its standard
format) shall be valid for the life time of the person
so long as such caste/tribe is not removed or
modified in the notifications issued by the Welfare
of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes
Department, Haryana.
(ii) Where a Caste Certificate is requested for specific
use outside the context of Government of Haryana,
it shall be issued in the format prescribed by the
Government of lndia.
(iii) Certificates which include income and/or assets
based information like creamy layer criteria shall
become invalid after the validity period prescribed
on the said certificate. Such certificates shall be
valid for the current financial year, i.e. till coming
45 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071446
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases31st March (included) from the date it has been
issued.
(iv) A Caste Certificate may also become invalid if
after due process, it has been concluded that the
caste was incorrectly mentioned on the certificate
or wrongly verified in the FIDR , due to any
reason whatsoever.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
(xv) General Terms and Conditions.-
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
(d) Mere issuance of a Caste certificate does not entitle a
person holding such certificate to any benefit that may be
admissible under various Government Schemes
implemented from time to time. Hence, it is important that
the authority concerned examines the applicant’s
entitlement to any specific benefit in accordance with the
instructions on the subject at any given point of time. For
instance, a person from the Backward Class may not be
entitled to certain benefits if he falls within the creamy
layer as defined from time to time. Accordingly, the Caste
Certificates shall address ONLY the caste of the
certificate holder. Other eligibility criteria for a
particular scheme shall be addressed separately by the
authority extending any such benefit.
46 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
47
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
4. Further, it is directed that no Government Department
of Haryana shall obligate any Haryana resident to submit
caste related proof documents if he/she provides PPN and
his/her caste and caste category is marked as verified in
Family information Data Repository (FIDR).”
From the perusal of instructions dated 22.03.2022, it is evident
that caste certificate once issued shall be valid for the lifetime
of the person, however, the certificates which include income
and/or assets based information like creamy layer criteria shall
become invalid after the validity period prescribed on the said
certificate. Such certificate shall be valid for the current
financial year i.e. till 31st March (included) from the date it has
been issued. Dichotomy between caste certificate and a
certificate which includes information of creamy layer is stark.
As per Clause 6.5 of the advertisement, BC certificate ought to
be as per instruction dated 22.03.2022. As per instructions, the
certificate having information of creamy layer is invalid after
31st March of the year. From the reading of above reproduced
BC certificate, it is evident that it is disclosing that candidate
does not belong to creamy layer.
19. From the conjoint reading of different instructions,
enactments and terms of advertisement, the salient features of
47 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
48
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
the advertisement qua reservation for BC candidates are culled
out as below:-
i. Reservation for BC candidates is governed by 2016 Act;
ii. No BC candidate is entitled to reservation, if he belongs
to creamy layer;
iii. Validity of BC certificate is lifetime;
iv. BC certificate can be obtained from SARAL portal;
v. SARAL postal is inter-linked with verified data of PPP
portal;
vi. PPP portal comprises of information of a family which
includes caste, income, address, number of family
members, assets etc.;
vii. Information at PPP portal is fed by resident of Haryana
and it is verified by competent authority. Data which
cannot be verified is reported as unverified;
viii. BC certificate which gives information about
creamy layer is valid till 31st March of the financial year;
ix. Any person whose data is available at PPP portal may
obtain BC certificate through SARAL portal;
x. While obtaining BC certificate from SARAL portal, no
information qua income is uploaded on SARAL portal;
xi. Data at PPP portal may be changed by furnishing
fresh/additional information;
48 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071449
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesxii. As soon as data at PPP portal is modified, data at
SARAL portal stands modified e.g. if income is updated
at PPP portal, updated income would be disclosed by
SARAL portal while issuing BC certificate.
21. The CET notification provides that information with respect
to caste and income/assets disclosed by applicant may be
verified from PPN. The same clause is part of Clause 6.5 of the
advertisement. At the cost of repetition but for the sake of
convenience and better understanding, Clause 6.5 of the
advertisement and relevant portion of Clause 5 of notification
dated 05.05.2022 is reproduced as below:-
xxxxxxxx
Clauses 5 of the Notification:
“REGISTRATION FOR CET:
(i) All applicants shall register on a designated portal i.e.
onetimeregn.haryana.gov.in by such last date to be
published by an advertisement issued by the Commission,
providing all particulars relating to the identity of the
applicant and uploading all the required documents
relating to any claim including claim for reservation,
educational qualifications, experience and socio-
economic criteria weightage and such other details as the
Government or the Commission may seek, from time to
time, for the purpose of recruitment.
49 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
50
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(ii) The Parivar Pehchan Number enables the
recruiting agency to verify the applicant’s claims in
respect of residence, educational and other
qualifications, caste and experience certificate, family
income/assets, status of parents (if any parent is
deceased the verification of death certificate is involved),
marital status of female applicant, separation certificate
of legally separated women, disability certificate, sports
gradation certificate, de-notified tribe/Vimukt Jati
certificate, certificate of ex-serviceman, dependent of ex-
servicemen certificate, dependent of freedom fighter, FIR
copy etc.”
22. From the above quoted clauses of the advertisement and
notification, inevitable conclusion which can be arrived at is
that the respondent was able to verify applicants’ claim in
respect of caste and family income/assets from PPP. The
facility was available at the time of CET as well as 2nd stage
test. There was no question to deny benefit on the ground that
the applicant had not submitted latest fresh BC certificate.
24. The respondent in the impugned order has held that BC
certificate is of before cut-off date i.e. 01.04.2023. The
petitioners downloaded BC certificate from SARAL Portal. The
petitioners have enclosed BC certificates of different years e.g.
BC certificates of Naveen S/o Raj Kumar is dated 23.03.2023
50 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
51
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
and another 10.03.2024. Both the certificates have been
downloaded from SARAL Portal. As per procedure prescribed
in the 2021 Act, an applicant uploads his particulars on the
official site. The competent authority verifies said information.
It is called as ‘verified information’ which forms basis of BC
certificate obtained from SARAL port. The applicant may
update ‘verified information’ and is bound to update if directed
by competent authority. The petitioners uploaded information
prior to filing application for CET. On the basis of said
information, BC certificate was issued by SARAL portal. If a
candidate applies either in 2022 or 2023 or 2024 for BC
certificate, the contents of the certificate except date of
certificate would remain same unless and until information
available at PPP portal is undated. The respondent during the
course of hearing harped on the question of date of certificate
which indicates that either respondent has failed to understand
the system of SARAL and PPP portal or there is some mis-
communication. The respondent should ask BC certificate
having incorporated income of a particular Financial Year.
The State Government with intent to achieve goal of upliftment
of poor strata of the society has evolved a novel electronic
mechanism of personal information. Information available on
PPP portal is utilized for all beneficial schemes introduced by
State Government. SARAL portal is part of benevolent schemes
51 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
52
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
introduced by State Government. Object of SARAL portal is to
provide BC certificate without physically approaching the
authorities and within shortest possible time. PPP portal
discloses verified as well as non-verified information of the
candidates. It opens horoscope of the family. The respondent
knowing this fact jotted down in the notification of CET as well
as advertisement in question that if latest BC certificate is not
filed, status would be confirmed from PPP. Intent as well
reason was stark and sound. There was not even an iota of
doubt. Mess developed due to longtime gap in the date of filing
application for CET, cancellation of first advertisement and
issuance of second advertisement that too in the next financial
year. In this process, three financial years came to be involved.
Data available on PPP portal was not updated, thus, BC
certificate obtained from SARAL port, irrespective of the date of
request was bound to give same information. The respondent
accepted BC certificate obtained from SARAL portal which on
account of afore-stated reasons was bound to give same
information irrespective of date of request made on SARAL
portal. Object of denial of benefit of BC to a candidate
belonging to creamy layer could not be achieved unless and
until latest financial status as contemplated by notification
issued under Section 5 of 2016 Act is gathered. This was
possible either by asking the candidates to upload latest
52 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
53
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
financial information at PPP portal or furnish manual BC
certificate disclosing latest financial information. The
respondent in the notification issued for CET and Advertisement
has provided for verifying BC status from PPP, thus, there was
no reason to deny benefit of reservation on the ground of non-
submission of latest fresh BC certificate.
25. A conspectus of BC certificate, notification dated
17.11.2021 and instructions dated 22.03.2022, reveals that BC
certificate which includes income & assets-based information
like creamy layer is valid till 31st March from the date it has
been issued e.g. a certificate issued on 01.01.2024 shall be valid
till 31.03.2024. As per Income Tax Act, 1961 financial year
sprawls from 1st April to 31st March like 01.04.2022 to
31.03.2023 is one financial year. Creamy layer status is
determined on the basis of income and assets held by family
during a financial year. A person may not be covered by
concept of creamy layer in one particular year but may be in
subsequent years. As per notification dated 17.11.2021 issued
under Section 5 of 2016 Act, a member of BC category belongs
to creamy layer if his parents are having gross annual income
of 6 Lakhs or above or possessing wealth above 1 Crore for
a period of last three consecutive years.
From the conjoint reading of Section 5 of 2016 Act, notification
issued thereunder, instruction dated 22.03.2022 and Clause 6.5
53 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
54
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
of the advertisement, it is evident that a candidate was not
entitled to reservation under BC category, if his parents were
having gross annual income of 6 Lakh or above. Claim of the
petitioners that concept of creamy layer is not relevant and only
BC certificate was required is misconceived. Section 5 of 2016
Act is a statutory provision which cannot be ignored. A
candidate claiming reservation as BC was bound to prove that
he did not belong to creamy layer. Concept of creamy layer as
envisaged by Section 5 of 2016 Act cannot be ignored.
xxxxxxxx
30. The respondent is primarily relying on judgment of Supreme
Court in Divya (supra) to contend that backward class status is
fluid and variable. It may change year to year because it is
directly linked with income and assets of the family. The Court
has clearly held that in case certificate is not uploaded along
with the application form, benefit should be denied.
The facts of the instant case are entirely different. In the case in
hand, it is no one’s case that BC certificate was not uploaded.
The dispute is confined to year of the certificate. There is no
judgment where condition of obtaining data from PPP was
existing and under consideration of the Court. As facts of
present case are entirely different, the judgments cited by
respondent cannot be relied upon.
54 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
55
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
31. There is another aspect of the matter which needs to be
taken care of. By way of this bunch of petitions more than
thousand candidates have approached this court. Mistake or
negligence may be on the part of one or few but cannot be on
the part of large number of candidates. It shows that there was
mis-communication which led to filing of BC certificates of
dates other than expected by respondent. Merely because of
some mis-understanding, candidates who are more meritorious
should not be deprived from the post. The petitioners after all
are going to hold public post and selection of less meritorious
candidates would be prejudicial to the interest of public at
large.
32. The respondent after last date for filing application, to
remove doubts, made minor corrections in the advertisement.
Stand of the petitioners that they should be permitted to file BC
certificates without any cut-off because respondent has made
correction in the advertisement after last date for filing
application is mis-conceived and needs to be rejected. The
respondent for the sake clarity and without prejudice to the
interest of candidates may remove doubts or carry out small
repair.
33. In the wake of above facts and findings, the above raised
questions are answered as:
55 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071456
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesi. In the absence of particular date in the rules or
advertisement, last date prescribed for filing application
for the advertised post is cut-off date. In the instant case,
cut-off date for limited purpose i.e. to upload documents,
was last date notified for filing application. The said date
had no bearing with the date of BC certificate.
ii. BC-A or BC-B certificate filed at the time of CET is valid
for all intent and purposes. The respondent could not ask
for fresh latest BC certificate at the 2nd stage of selection
process. Three financial years came to involved in view
of peculiar facts and circumstances, thus, BC certificates
filed at the time of CET are valid.
iii. The respondent was bound to verify PPP in the absence
of fresh latest BC certificate.
iv. No candidate could be transposed from BC category to
general category on account of non-submission of fresh
latest BC certificate at the second stage.
34. In the above premise, all the petitions deserve to be allowed
and accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are hereby set
aside. To avoid the filing of further petitions, it is hereby made
clear that benefit of this judgment would be available to all the
candidates who have been transposed from BC to general
category. No order as to costs.
56 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
57
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(14) In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner(s) have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of ‘Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board‘ reported as (2016) 4 SCC 754. The relevant extract of the
same reads thus:-
14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not
considering the decision rendered in Pushpa [Pushpa v.
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281]. In that
case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly
held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the
OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was
published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC
category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the
entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the
backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved
categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3)
SCC 217] as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University
[Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545].
The learned Single Judge in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT
of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] also considered
another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh
[Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine
57 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
58
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Del 1092], wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken
the view that the candidature of those candidates who
belonged to the SC and ST categories could not be rejected
simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate.
The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in
Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992
Supp (3) SCC 217] has been extracted in Pushpa [Pushpa v.
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] along
with the speech delivered by Dr Ambedkar in the Constituent
Assembly and reads thus:
“9. … ‘251. Referring to the concept of equality of
opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article
10 of the Draft Constitution, which finally emerged as
Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims
of various communities for representation in public
administration, Dr. Ambedkar emphatically declared that
reservation should be confined to “a minority of seats”,
lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In
view of its great importance, the full text of his speech
delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is
appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few
passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated:
“… firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity,
secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of
58 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071459
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casescertain communities which have not so far had a
‘proper look-in’ so to say into the administration. …
Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full
the demand of those communities who have not been
so far employed in the public services to the fullest
extent, what would really happen is, we shall be
completely destroying the first proposition upon
which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be
an equality of opportunity. … Therefore the seats to
be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with
sub-clause (1) of Article 10. It is then only that the
first principle could find its place in the Constitution
and effective in operation. … we have to safeguard
two things, namely, the principle of equality of
opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand
of communities which have not had so far
representation in the State….” [Constituent Assembly
Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-02 (1948-1949).
These words embody the raison d’être of reservation and
its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures
adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil
effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory
practices against various classes of people which have
resulted in their social, educational and economic
59 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071460
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesbackwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to
the present social, educational and economic
backwardness caused by purposeful societal
discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and
perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits
and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even
when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects.
Any such measure, insofar as one group is preferred to
the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly
tailored to the achievement of the fundamental
constitutional goal.’
15. In Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 281], relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh
[Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine
Del 1092] have also been extracted, which read thus:
“11. … ’17. The matter can be looked into from another
angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-6-1999
issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various
categories including SC category. Thus in order to be
considered for the post reserved for SC category, the
requirement is that a person should belong to SC
category. If a person is SC he is so by birth and not by
acquisition of this category because of any other event
happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by
60 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071461
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casescompetent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of
fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such
certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the
assertion of the candidate that he belongs to SC category
and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate
for his belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners
did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that
acquired the status of being SC only on the date of
issuance of the certificate. In view of this position,
necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998
would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale
objective sought to be achieved.
18. While taking a particular view in such matters one
has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC
and ST categories as per constitutional mandate
prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are
enabling provisions authorising the Government to make
special provisions for the persons of SC and ST
categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to
remove social and economic inequality to make equal
opportunities available in reality. Social and economic
justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The
right in social and economic justice envisaged in the
Preamble and elongated in the fundamental rights and
61 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071462
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesdirective principles of the Constitution, in particular
Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the
quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and
disabled citizens of the society meaningful.’
(15) Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of ‘Karan Singh Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)’
reported as (2024) 2 SCC 588, wherein a Large Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court upheld the ratio laid down in the matter of Ram Kumar
Gijroya (supra).
(16) Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of ‘Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE (SC)’ reported
as 2005 (9) SCC 779, to contend that every infraction of rule relating to
submitting of proof need not necessarily result of rejection of candidature.
A candidate who is higher in order of merit should not be denied his due on
account of delayed submission of proof of his eligibility. The relevant
extract of the said judgment reads thus:-
7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of
study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility
qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in
the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may
be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There
can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding
the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has
to be established by producing the necessary certificates,
62 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071463
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesdegrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit
of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to
be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of
holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks
secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending
upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the
matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply
any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure.
Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need
not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
8. This principle was explained and applied in Charles K.
Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew [(1980) 2 SCC 752]. The controversy
here related to admission to a postgraduate course in medicine.
The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a
candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or
subspecialty and this benefit could be given only if the
candidate’s success in the diploma course was brought to the
knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of
selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The prospectus
provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and
other documents should be attached with every application.
Three such candidates were given admission who had not
attached the certificate of having passed the diploma along with
their applications. Their admission to postgraduate course was
63 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
64
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
set aside by the High Court on the ground that their
applications, wherein they claimed the benefit of diploma, were
liable to be rejected as the requisite certificates had not been
attached. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. reversed
the judgment of the High Court and held that the admission to
the candidates had rightly been given as they had in fact passed
the diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of paras
20 and 24 of the judgment, where this principle was highlighted
are being reproduced below: (SCC pp. 762 & 763)
“20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding
10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra
10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before
the last date for application, not later. Proof of having
obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having
got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before
the final date of application for admission to the degree
course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to
produce evidence of the diploma along with the application,
but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is
illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through
a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be
denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the
date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the
proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the
64 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
65
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
diploma and is not an independent factor. … Mode of proof
is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is
subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of
the prescription to telescope the two and make both
mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the
possession of a diploma before the given date; what is
ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To
confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity.
To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional
qualification before the last date for application makes
sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification
has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case
here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though
indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the
selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus,
but still above board, is to make procedure not the
handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to
substance but as superior to the essence.
***
24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic approach
is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and
subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of
viewing problems de-humanises the administrative, judicial
and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of
65 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
66
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and
harassment in administration flows from overemphasis on
the external rather than the essential. We think the
Government and the Selection Committee rightly treated as
directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding
of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the
diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory
it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak
of other authenticated documents like marklists from
universities, why, even bail orders from courts and
government orders from public offices.”
(emphasis in original)
9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved MI
category. She comes from a very humble background, her
father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have
noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla
Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29-6-2003.
But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her
due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of
second counselling. Those who secured rank lower than the
appellant have already been admitted. The view taken by the
authorities in denying admission to the appellant is wholly
unjust and illegal.
66 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
67
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(17) Reference is also made to the judgment dated 24.03.2023 of a
Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA-1199-2019 titled as ‘Haryana
Staff Selection Commission Vs. Subhash Chand‘ reported as 2023 SCC
OnLine P&H 568, wherein the Division Bench of this Court considered the
delayed production of EPBGC Certificates by the candidates therein and to
ascertain as to whether such delay could be a ground to not consider the
claim of respondent No.1 therein for appointment under the said category.
The relevant extract of the same reads thus:-
“Merely on the ground that there was a delay in
production of EPBGC certificate from the competent authority,
in our opinion, respondent No.1 cannot be denied employment.
In Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE, the Supreme
Court held as under:-
“The general rule is that while applying for any course
of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility
qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose
either in the admission brochure or in application form,
as the case may be, unless there is an express provision
to the contrary………”
Thus the important thing to be seen is that while
eligibility i.e. possessing education qualification should be
possessed by the cut off date, for claiming benefit of
reservation, proof of eligibility to claim such reservation need
not be submitted by cut off date. Even if proof of claim of
67 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
68
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
eligibility for reservation is produced beyond cut off date, the
candidate can be considered for grant of the said benefit and
cannot be denied relief.
In Ram Kumar Gijroya case, the appellant had sought
appointment to the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category,
but the said certificate was not submitted with the application
and submitted after the last date mentioned in the
advertisement. The appellant was therefore not selected on that
ground, but the Supreme Court held that the candidature of
those candidates, who belonged to reserved categories, could
not be rejected simply on account of late submission of caste
certificate. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of
certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion
of the candidate that he belongs to a particular category and
act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his
belonging to the said category. It was not as if the petitioners
therein did not belong to the reserved category prior to the cut
off date or that they acquire the status of belonging to the said
category only on the date of issuance of the certificate. It held
that necessitating upon a certificate to be issued prior to the cut
off date would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rational
objective sought to be achieved.
In Charles K. Skaria and others Vs. Dr. C. Mathew and
others, the Supreme Court held that the candidates who got
68 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
69
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
admission even though they had not attached the certificate of
having passed the diploma alongwith their applications, could
not have their admission to a Post Graduate cancelled provided
they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed, but
had submitted the diploma with delay. It observed that the
important question is whether or not the candidate secured a
diploma before the final date of application for admission to the
degree course and if he did have the diploma some relaxation
in producing evidence of the diploma can be granted. It held
that the emphasis should be on the diploma and the proof
thereof subserves the factum of possession of diploma and is
not an independent factor. It held that what is essential is the
possession of the diploma before the given date and what is
ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To make
mandatory, the date of acquiring the qualification before the
last date for application make sense. But if it is shown that the
qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, to
invalidate the merit factor because proof was adduced a few
days later, would not be proper.
We may also point out that the decision in Dolly
Chhanda (Supra) was applied by the Supreme Court in
Archana Chouhan Pundhir (Dr.) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and others reported as 2011 (11) SCC 486.
69 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
70
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
In Archana Chouhan Pundhir (Dr.) as on 30.04.2007, the
appellant had completed more than 7 years service as Medical
Officer in Public Health and Family Welfare Department of
Government of Madhya Pradesh. Her services were regularized
w.e.f. 31.12.2005 vide order dt. 10.04.2007. Her application for
admission to the post of graduate course as an in service
candidate was accepted by the authorities and she was allowed
to appear in the entrance exam of 2007, but she was denied
admission because of non award of remarks in lieu of her 7
years service. The High Court dismissed her Writ Petition for
admission into the Post Graduate course as an in-service
candidate on the ground that the result of the entrance
examination was declared on 09.04.2007 and the order of
regularization of her service was issued on 10.04.2007. The
Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court and held
that the date on which the order of regularization was issued
was purely fortuitous and the same cannot be made basis for
depriving the appellant of her legitimate right as an in-service
candidate. It noted that the appellant had worked as Assistant
Surgeon in District Hospital, Raisen on contract basis vide
order dt. 26.10.1999 and her Writ Petition had been allowed by
the learned Single Judge on 21.04.2004 directing consideration
of regularization of her services in three months, but the
respondents took three years and only on 10.04.2007
70 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
71
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
regularized her service w.e.f. 31.12.2005. It observed that if the
State Government had issued the order of regularization before
05.03.2007 i.e. the last date fixed for receipt of the application,
the appellant would have been saved of the harassment, mental
agony and financial loss suffered by her on account of
unwarranted and post litigation.
Thus importance was given to the possession of the
eligible qualification by the candidate as on the cut off date and
not on the possession of the proof of such eligibility on that
date.
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Rina
and another Vs. Vice Chancellor, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of
Health Sciences, Rohtak and others.”
(18) Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 19.10.2023
passed in LPA-205-2023 by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
‘Nirdosh Kumar Vs. Pb. & Hry. High, Chandigarh & others’. The
operative part of the said judgment reads thus:
“9. In the present case, as noticed, it is not the issue of
ineligibility of the candidates regarding their qualifications
which they necessarily had. It was only the fact that they had
not appended the necessary certificate regarding the proof of
date of birth and neither it is the case of the respondents that
they were ineligible on account of being overage or underage.
The Apex Court has, thus, held that relaxation can be there in
71 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071472
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesthe matter of submission of proof and it would not be proper to
apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of
procedure. Relevant observation in Dolly Chhanda (supra)
reads as under:
“7. The general rule is that while applying for any course
of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility
qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose
either in the admission brochure or in application form,
as the case may be, unless there is an express provision
to the contrary……………….. These are documents in the
nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or
percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of
reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there
can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of
proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid
principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every
infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need
not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.”
xxxxxxxx
13. Similar view was also taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in
LPA-1199-2019 titled Haryana Staff Selection Commission Vs.
Subhash Chand decided on 24.03.2023, wherein it was noticed
that the eligibility and possessing the educational qualifications
is an important criteria by the cut-off date and the EBPGC
72 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
73
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
certificate issued which was subsequent to the last date would
not as such debar the writ petitioner for consideration for
appointment. Accordingly, the order of the Learned Single
Judge was upheld. The same principle would also apply herein.
14. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion
that once the writ petitioners had got the benefit of the interim
order and had due qualifications and are in the merit list and
also had given undertaking that they would not claim seniority,
merely on the ground of technicality that the date of birth
certificate had not been appended with the application should
not debar them from consideration. It is not the case of the
respondents that the appellants were not between the age of 27-
30 years as on 27.06.2017 and therefore to be denied
appointment on the said post would be without justification.
The judgments relied upon by counsel for the High Court
pertains mainly to the question of admission in the University
wherein it was held that there is no scope for enlarging the time
as interest of other candidates would come in and also on the
question of non-possessing the eligibility qualifications before
the cut-off date which is not the case herein.”
(19) Reliance is also placed on the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by
a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-61/2025 tilted as ‘Haryana State
Selection Commission Vs. Sumit and others‘. The operative part of the said
order reads thus:-
73 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071474
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases“3. The learned Single Judge noticed that when the writ
petitioner appeared for scrutiny of his documents and produced
certificate reflecting that he was ward of an Ex-serviceman, the
same was not accepted by the authorities and even asked to
produce the certificate duly issued by the District Sainik and
Ardh. Sainik Welfare Officer, Sonepat which he produced after
getting the same on 10.02.2022. Learned Single Judge having
noticed the said facts also noticed that the Commission had
extended the date of scrutiny of documents subsequently for
candidates who did not appear for scrutiny during the earlier
dates as notified and absenting candidates were allowed to
produce documents and were considered for verification on
11.03.2022. The judgment passed by this Court in the case of
‘Anil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others‘ in CWP-1808-
2022 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
‘Dolly Chandra Vs. Chairman JEE, 2005(9) SCC 779 as well
as in the case of ‘Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board and another‘, 2016(4) SCC 754 were
considered. We find that in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the candidature of the writ
petitioner who had produced caste certificate subsequently
holding that the status of a reserved category candidate cannot
be denied merely on account of late issuance of the certificate
where certificates were issued later than the cut date. We,
74 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
75
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
therefore, do not find any reasons to differ from the view as
taken by the learned Single Judge and respectfully followed the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to hold that the
status of the petitioner would not change merely because the
certificate is issued in the later date. We are also of the view
that on account of such discrepancies, merit should not be a
failure on a person having higher than ought not be denied his
right to claim for selection of the candidature.
4. In view thereto, the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge does not warrant any interference and the same is
upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
(20) In support of their contentions in CWP-30312-2024 titled
‘Neha Dhiman Vs. State of Haryana and another‘, learned counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of ‘Poonam Devi
Vs. State of Haryana and others‘ reported as 2024 NCPHHC 95034. The
operative part of the same reads thus:
“3. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar vs.
State of Bihar, had held that if the application form contains a
genuine and bona fide mistake, penalising the candidate would
be unjust. The possibly distracting environment of the cyber
cafe may have led to the error on the part of the appellant,
therefore, making a mountain out of a molehill would be unjust
on the part of the State. The cancellation order was
consequently set aside, while acknowledging the successful
75 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071476
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesparticipation and completion of the selection process by the
appellant. Further, “In the instant case, we cannot turn a
Nelson’s eye to the ground realities that existed. In the order
dated 22.11.2021 in C.A. No. 6983 of 2021 [Prince Jaibir Singh
v. Union of India], this Court rightly observed that though
technology is a great enabler, there is at the same time, a
digital divide.” While relying on the said judgment, the
Division Bench in Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs.
Vishvajeet Singh and another 3 dismissed the appeal, by
affirming the relief as granted by the Single Bench and
observed that the lapse was on account of the respondent
having mistakenly opted for the wrong category of BC-‘A’,
instead of BC-‘B’, in support of which he had uploaded the
appropriate certificate. It was also the case that the marks
obtained by him were more than the cut off in both categories.
There would have been no benefit derived by him by mentioning
the wrong category.
4. The factum of the petitioner having uploaded the EWS
certificate and not ESM, by itself unequivocally establishes her
intention to be considered in the said category, however, the
mistake occurred in selecting a wrong option, which was due to
her having filled the application form with aid of cyber cafe, for
the correction of which, since there was no provision in the
website, she also approached the Commission prior to the
76 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071477
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected caseswritten exam being conducted on 25.07.2021 but to no avail.
She would have gained nothing by choosing a category of
which she did not have a certificate. Thus, it would be highly
unjust to oust her of consideration from the category she
belonged.”
(21) Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench of this Court in the
matter of ‘Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary Vs.
Sarla and others‘ reported as 2019 SCC Online P&H 5446. The relevant
extract of the same reads thus:
“4. The case set up by the respondent-petitioner was that as
soon as the mistake committed in filling up online form came to
her knowledge she immediately made a representation dated
27.04.2017 before respondent No.2 requesting for necessary
correction in the application form. She was assured that at the
time of verification of the documents she will be allowed to
carry out necessary corrections and was permitted to appear in
the written test. However, subsequently when she appeared for
verification of documents on 03.07.2017 she was not allowed to
participate in the interview and her candidature was cancelled.
5. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in view of the
prevailing socio economic condition in our country, every
citizen is neither net savvy nor has a computer or laptop readily
available for use. In these circumstances, when such a
candidate has to submit an application on-line he has to
77 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
78
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
dependent upon the cyber cafés providing the net services.
Being himself/herself not computer and net savvy the candidate
has to depend upon the operator in the cyber café to fill in
online form and in such a circumstance if any mistake occurs it
would be wholly unrealistic and arbitrary to make such a
candidate suffer. It is also to be taken note of that if an
incorrect entry is made due to human error, there is no
provision on the website of the Commission allowing correction
in the online application form. In these circumstances, if a
mistake is committed, there being no provision for carrying out
correction, even if it is noticed subsequently, a poor candidate
is to suffer for no fault.
6. In the case in hand, the respondent-petitioner is a poor
widow lady and is resident of village Karora, District Kaithal,
where she was working as an Anganwari Worker. It is pleaded
in the writ petition that online application form was submitted
by her through computer centre in the village. In view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances we find no illegality in the
view taken by the learned Single Judge allowing the claim of
the respondent-petitioner.”
(22) Adverting to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners have
vehemently argued that the stand of the respondent-HPSC is towards an
extreme having taken recourse to the last resort by rejecting their
candidature notwithstanding their merit. They have submitted that the
78 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
79
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
backward class ‘non-creamy layer’ certificate is merely a document as a
proof of their eligibility and is valid for a given financial year. Hence,
attaching much significance to the date of issuance of the certificate is not in
furtherance of the objective sought to be achieved by providing for
reservation. Once the said certificate, despite the time of its issuance is valid
for the complete financial year, the date of its issuance is insignificant for
determining the eligibility. Hence, the petitioners ought to be considered
eligible in their respective categories and they should not be ousted from the
zone of consideration only on account of delayed submission of the
certificate or erroneously appending other certificates, that were otherwise in
compliance to the Government notification, but may not be in compliant of
the advertisement.
Arguments by State:
(23) Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Haryana, however,
submits that they have no competing interest at this juncture and that the
decisions taken by the Haryana Public Service Commission is required to be
defended by the Commission itself.
Arguments by H.P.S.C.:
(24) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
Commission however responds that the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners are misconceived and based on wrong
interpretation and appreciation of the essential terms & conditions published
by the Commission. He contends that the closing date had been specified by
the Commission to be 12.07.2024 and that even though by virtue of a
79 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
80
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
corrigendum, the date was extended, however, the said date was extended
only for submission of the online application forms and the same should not
be construed as an extension for determination of eligibility. He further
submits that the Commission had given a specific note that the eligibility of
a candidate with reference to the documents submitted by him/her has to be
seen as on the closing date and that no document which was obtained or
furnished after the cut-off date shall be taken into consideration by the
Commission and the candidature of such a candidate shall be liable to be
rejected. The said aspect having been specifically clarified in Note 2, it was
expected that all the candidates who are qualified doctors, would exercise
the required prudence at their end while submitting the online application
forms. He re-emphasises the need to consider Sub-Clause (iii) of Clause-11,
which specifies that the latest/updated certificate has to be appended by a
candidate which has to be not only in conformity with the Notification dated
17.11.2021, but also has to be in conformity with the Government
instruction dated 22.03.2022.
(25) Further, in relation to the candidate who were in possession of
their OBC certificates, they were also apprised to submit BC-A/BC-B
certificate(s) as per the new instructions. It is contended that despite
repeated cautions having been put by the commission in the advertisement,
the petitioners have failed to submit the compliant documents and hence,
their candidature has rightly been rejected by the Commission. No leverage
could have been extended by the Commission in supersession of its own
instructions and terms & conditions prescribed in the advertisement and the
80 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
81
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
same were sacrosanct. The sanctity of the cut-off date cannot be diluted on
account of the negligence/omission committed by the candidates, which
such negligence is attributable to their own lapse and is not on account of
any act/omission on the part of the respondent-Commission.
(26) He further contends that allowing the petitioners to participate
in the process of selection despite them being ineligible on account of
having failed to submit the requisite documents, would tantamount to giving
premium to a person who is himself at lapse and that he cannot claim
sympathy from this Court by portraying as if he is being victimized by the
Commission. Considering them eligible at this stage would deprive the
other candidates, who now fall in the zone of selection for an appointment.
Besides, in the event such liberty/sympathy is extended to the candidates
who were themselves negligent and have been rendered ineligible on
account of the same, the process of selection would never be finalised and
all essential terms & conditions would lose the sanctity, enforceability and
meaning.
(27) He further submits that in so far as the submissions of the
petitioners, that the PPP had been appended by them alongwith reliance on
condition No.4 of the Govt. Instruction dated 22.03.2022 is concerned, the
same was in relation to the caste certificate that has been issued. Since the
dispute involved in the present cases does not pertain as to whether the
petitioners belong to the respective caste or not and is rather whether they
are entitled to the benefit under the ‘creamy/non-creamy layer’, hence, the
financial boundaries for claiming eligibility/consideration in respect of their
81 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
82
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
category was dependent upon the certificate issued by the competent
authority. The petitioners thus cannot take benefit of said clause as
incorporated in Govt. Instructions dated 22.03.2022 and to equate the same
to the backward class certificate required to be issued in terms of the Govt.
Notification dated 17.11.2021. The financial discipline and the asset/income
being the determining criteria for ascertaining the eligibility of a person to
claim benefit of reservation under non-creamy layer, hence, the burden lies
upon the candidate to append the requisite documents, as would establish
his/her entitlement to claim benefit of consideration in the respective
category.
(28) He further contends that the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that a letter was sent by the
Commission to the candidates, provisionally apprising them about their
ineligibility and thus, granting an opportunity to submit a representation,
does not confer any right on the petitioners, since granting of the opportunity
to submit their representation cannot be equated as granting an opportunity
to remove a defect. The said process had been initiated only to allow a
candidate, where he was otherwise compliant of all the terms & conditions
as on the cut-off date, however, due to inadvertence some document is
misplaced or is not available. The same cannot be equated as submission of
an altogether new document which has come to light after the cut-off date.
(29) He further submits that the same was only a show cause to
verify as to whether any mistake has been committed by the Commission
itself and was not for extending any opportunity to the candidates to make
82 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
83
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
good a deficiency. The candidate thus was at liberty to point out any error
that may have crept in on the part of the Commission, resulting in rejection
of the candidature and cannot thus be construed as vesting of a right in a
candidate to make good a defect.
(30) Responding to the case of Neha Dhiman, learned counsel for
the Commission contends that under the garb of seeking correction of a
ministerial error, the petitioner herein is seeking a change in the category
from creamy to non-creamy layer and that the same cannot be permitted at
this juncture. It has tested the eligibility of the candidates solely on the basis
of the documents appended by them and comparing them with the
requirements prescribed by the respondent-Commission.
(31) Responding to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court
pertaining to the selection undertaken by the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission relied upon by the petitioners, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Commission contends that the said judgment is not
applicable to the facts of the present case, as no cut-off date was prescribed
in the said case whereas a cut-off date has been specified by the Commission
in the present case. He contends that in the said advertisement, the caste
certificate was only required to be issued as per the Notification dated
17.11.2021 or as per the PPP, which is not the case in the advertisement
issued by the respondent-Commission. He submits that the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Divya (supra) has been
distinguished by the Coordinate Bench of this Court solely on the aforesaid
factual aspect. Hence, once the terms & conditions have been prescribed and
83 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
84
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
published by the respondent-Commission in the advertisement, the ratio of
the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case
and accordingly, the ratio as laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Divya (supra) would become applicable.
Judgments Relied Upon by the Respondent-HPSC:
(32) Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent-
Commission on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
‘Divya Vs. Union of India and others‘ reported as 2024 (1) SCC 448. The
relevant extract thereof reads thus:-
7. A careful perusal of the Rules would disclose that, under Rule
28, candidates seeking reservation under EWS for the purpose
of CSE-2022 must ensure that they are entitled to such
reservation as per the eligibility prescribed in the Rules. The
eligibility prescribed for EWS under Rule 27(3) is that the
candidate should meet the criteria issued by the Central
Government and should be in possession of requisite Income &
Asset Certificate (I&AC) based on the income for Financial
Year 2020-2021. Secondly, the candidates should also be in
possession of all the requisite certificates in the prescribed
format by the closing date of the application for Civil Services
(Preliminary) Examination – 2022.
It can be seen from the above-mentioned clauses that the
benefit of reservation can be availed on possession of Income &
Asset Certificate [I&AC] issued by a Competent Authority.
84 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
85
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Under Clause 5.3 of the OM, the crucial date for submitting
I&AC may be treated as the closing date for receipt of
application for the post, except in cases where crucial date is
fixed otherwise.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9. The applicable date for possession in this case is 22.02.2022.
This is because after the promulgation of the Rules, the third
respondent – Union Public Service Commission [UPSC] issued
the examination notice on 02.02.2022 and the last date for
submission of the application was 22.02.2022 and the time of
deadline was 6.00 p.m. on that day.
10. As is clear from Rule 13 extracted above, the uploading of
the certificates happens only after the declaration of the results
of the Preliminary Examination and before the Main
Examination is held. For the Main Examination, a candidate is
required to submit an on-line Detailed Application Form-I
(DAF-I) along with scanned documents/certificates in support
of the claim for EWS category within the prescribed time.
11. Any delay in submission of the DAF-I or documents in
support beyond the prescribed date was not to be allowed and
would lead to cancellation of the candidature.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
21. The detailed facts pertaining to the petitioners in W.P.(C)
Nos. 705 and 764 have been set out in the later part of this
85 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
86
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
judgment. Insofar as the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 705 and
764 are concerned, there is no dispute on one fact that with
regard to all of them, the documents submitted with DAF-I were
not the correct documents reflecting their eligibility. Admittedly,
there was some lacunae or the other which they claim were
rectified beyond the date of submission of DAF-I. The UPSC, in
its counter affidavit, has clearly urged that with regard to the
298 EWS candidates, who were ultimately shortlisted, the I&AC
as uploaded by them in DAF-I was scrutinized and they have
rejected their candidature or converted some of them to the
General Category.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
38. In the light of the pleadings and the contentions set out
above, the following main questions arise for consideration:
a) What is the eligibility criterion for a candidate to stake a
valid claim under the EWS Category as per the CSE Rules,
2022 read with OM dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019?
b) Was the UPSC justified in prescribing the cut-off date for
possession and for uploading of the I&AC certificates in the
prescribed format to stake a valid claim under the EWS
category, as done in the instant case?
c) Are the CSE-Rules 2022 enforceable in law? d) Are Rules 13,
27(3) and 28 of the CSE-Rules 2022 constitutionally valid?
86 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
87
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
e) Was the UPSC justified in rejecting the claim of the
petitioners for consideration under the EWS category?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
41. It is very clear that an EWS candidate acquired eligibility to
be an EWS candidate for the purpose of CSE-2022 only if the
candidate met the criterion prescribed by the Central
Government and is in possession of the requisite I&AC based
on the income for the F.Y. 2020-2021. Read with Rule 28, the
candidate should also be in possession of the certificate as on
22.02.2022. So it is beyond cavil that one cannot decide for
oneself that the candidate is an EWS candidate and only on the
fulfilment of the criteria and the issuance of the certificate
before 22.02.2022 will the eligibility as an EWS candidate,
enure to the benefit of the candidate for the CSE-2022. The
argument of Shri K. Parameshwar, learned counsel, that being
from the “EWS” category is a status and the I&AC to be
produced is only a proof and as such the I&AC can be
produced at any stage cannot be accepted in the teeth of the
clear prescription in the Office Memoranda read with the CSE-
2022 Rules. Further, as required under Rule 13, at the stage of
DAF-I the document had to be submitted on-line before the
prescribed date (in the present case for CSE-2022 the date was
15.07.2022) and that any delay in submission of DAF-I or
document beyond the prescribed date was not allowed. These
87 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
88
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
clear stipulations run counter to the submissions of learned
counsel that on the rectification of a certificate it relates back to
the date of the certificate.
42. The entire burden of the song of the petitioners is that they
were eligible EWS candidates and that it was only a delay
caused in the production of proof thereof. They repeatedly urge
before us the dictum of Krishna Iyer, J., in Charles K. Skaria
(supra), namely:-
“…To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred
perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring
the additional qualification before the last date for
application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown
that the qualification has been acquired before the
relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit
factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a
few days later but before the selection or in a manner not
mentioned in the prospectus, but still above-board, is to
make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and
form not as subservient to substance but as superior to
the essence.”
43. In Charles K. Skaria (supra), most candidates possessed the
eligibility viz. the diploma. Only the proof in the form of
certificate was awaited. The authorities had also accepted them
as eligible, expressly informing the selection committee that for
88 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
89
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
eligible candidates even if proof came later and before the final
selection, it should be considered as valid. This was also
equally the situation in Dolly Chhanda (supra), Alok Kumar
Singh (supra) and Dheerender Singh Paliwal (supra) where the
factual position about the eligibility was not in dispute. Those
cases and the cases of that ilk cannot support the petitioners in
this case for the purpose of claiming eligibility in CSE-2022 as
an EWS candidate.
44. The meaning of the word “eligible” as defined in P.
Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon is set out
hereunder:-
“Applied to the selection of persons, the word has two
meanings i.e. “legally qualified,” or “fit to be chosen.”
Applied to our context, a person can be found eligible as an
economically weaker section candidate and he can be
considered as a fit person to be chosen under that category only
if the requirement of the OM of 31.01.2019 and Rule 27(3) read
with Rule 28 are fulfilled. In Gaurav Singh‘s case (supra), it has
been categorically held that assets for the particular Financial
Year, prior to the year of submission, goes to the root of
eligibility of the candidate in the EWS category. It has been
further held therein that the candidates whose I&ACs are not in
order did not have any legal right to be considered. It has also
been held that no candidate can claim any legal right for
89 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
90
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
reconsideration of the candidature by submitting a fresh
certificate and/or a rectified certificate.
45. That is the fundamental distinction between the Charles J.
Skaria (supra) line of cases and the cases at hand. As pointed
out earlier, the eligibility for being categorized as EWS
candidate crystallizes only when the I&AC is issued and, in this
case, as required under the rules, it was to be issued and
possessed by the candidate before 22.02.2022.
46. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules
which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be
possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or
any other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for
determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding
that it would be the last date for submission of the application.
(See Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp
(3) SCC 168]; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5
SCC 262]; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [(2007) 4
SCC 54].
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
54. The strong reliance placed on Ram Kumar Gijroya case
(supra) also does not impress us. Not only was there no rule,
like we have in the present case, it was only while declaring the
result, the requirement of submitting the OBC certificate before
the cut-off date was introduced by the Selection Authority there.
90 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
91
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Moreover, unlike the present, there was no contention or issue
raised in that case that eligibility enures or crystallizes only on
the issuance of the certificate and on possession of the
certificate, before the prescribed cut-off date.
55. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya case (supra) is also
directly in conflict with the judgment of three Hon’ble Judges in
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and
Another (1997) 4 SCC 18 wherein in para 6, it was held as
under:-
“.. So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated
1-9-1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion
that majority judgment (rendered by Dr.T.K. Thommen
and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The
proposition that where applications are called for
prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the
applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to
be judged with reference to that date and that date alone
is a well-established one. A person who acquires the
prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed
date, cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or
notification issued/published calling for applications
constitutes a representation to the public and the
authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It
cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this
91 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071492
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesproposition is that if it were known that persons who
obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but
before the date of interview would be allowed to appear
for the interview, other similarly placed persons could
also have applied. Just because some of the persons had
applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the
prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they
could not have been treated on a preferential basis….”
56. Apart from all of this, the correctness of Ram Kumar
Gijroya case (supra) was referred to a three-Judge Bench in the
case of Karn Singh Yadav (two-Judges). A perusal of para six of
the referral order clearly shows that the Bench was echoing the
ratio of the three-judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma‘s case
(supra) though there is no express reference to the said case.
However, when the matter came before a three- Judge Bench,
the reference was not answered and even after noticing that
Ram Kumar Gijroya case (supra) covered the case of Karn
Singh Yadav (two-Judges), the Court, however, denied relief to
Karn Singh Yadav, the petitioner by holding that since the
appellant was never appointed to the post at that length of time
it was not possible to grant any relief to the appellant. Ram
Kumar Gijorya (supra) is clearly distinguishable.
57. Be that as it may, we are bound by the judgment of the
three-Judge Bench in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and we
92 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
93
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
follow the said judgment and reiterate the principle laid down
thereon. It is also interesting to note that even in Deepak Yadav
(supra), a judgment, strongly relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, the principle in Ashok Kumar Sharma
(supra) has been reiterated. However, because of what the
Court called an abnormal and cataclysmal year, an exception
was made due to the ongoing pandemic, lockdown and
restrictions imposed thereof. In Alok Kumar Singh (supra), no
rules like the ones present in this case are shown to have
existed. In the present case, there are clear prescriptions as to
eligibility, as has been discussed herein above.
58. In Gaurav Singh‘s case (supra), this Court has held as
under:-
“A technical irregularity in a certificate issued by the
competent authority in respect of the correct financial
year cannot be equated with an Income and Asset
Certificate in respect of a different financial year when
the Income and Assets for the particular financial year
prior to the year of submission of the application, goes to
the root of eligibility of a candidate to qualify in the EWS
category.
The Respondent-Writ Petitioners were well aware that
they had to furnish Income and Asset Certificates issued
by the Competent Authority for the financial year prior to
93 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071494
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesthe year of application. If the applications were made
pursuant to a notification published on 24th April 2019
with 20th May 2019 notified as the last date for
submission of the applications, the financial year prior to
the year of submission of application could not possibly
be the financial year 2019-2020, to which the Certificates
related. The observation in the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court of the expediency of specifying
the financial year in the notification for recruitment is in
the nature of an advisory, which may be kept in mind
when recruitment notifications are issued by the
Appellant in future. The Respondent writ petitioner Nos. 2
and 4, in whose Income and Asset certificates were not in
order, did not have any legal right to be considered EWS
candidates.
The Respondent-Writ Petitioners were required to submit
Certificates for the relevant financial year. The
negligence of the Respondent-Writ Petitioners in not
checking if the Certificate related to the correct financial
year, cannot be lightly brushed aside as inadvertent
lapses of the certifying authority. A candidate applying
for a post pursuant to an advertisement, cannot afford to
be negligent. Documents required to be submitted have to
be carefully checked by the candidate concerned before
94 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071495
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casessubmission. An appointing authority proceeds on the
basis of what is stated in a certificate. When a certificate
pertains to a different financial year, the same is liable to
be outright rejected. No candidate can, in such case,
claim any legal right to reconsideration of his/her
candidature by submission of a fresh certificate and/or
rectified certificate.
… .. …
In the case of Respondent-Writ Petitioner No.3, the
Income and Asset certificate, which had initially been
questioned as having been issued by an authority not
competent, was later accepted as it was found that the
authority issuing the certificate was in fact competent.
The certificate of the Respondent-Writ Petitioner No.1
was also accepted as there was no discrepancy in either
the date of issuance or the year. It was just that the seal
had been stamped without the full name of the officer
concerned and that was accepted as an error not
attributable to the candidate concerned.”
(Emphasis is ours)
59. The attempt by Ms. Preetika Dwivedi and Shri K.
Parameshwar, learned counsels for the petitioners to get over
Gaurav Singh‘s case (supra) by relying on the case of Deepak
Yadav (supra) does not also impress us. Deepak Yadav case
95 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
96
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(supra) pertained to the Civil Services Examination for 2020. It
was during the middle of the peak pandemic in 2020. In that
scenario, the Court observed as follows:-
“7. Indeed, the last part of Note I of clause 7 clearly
provides that proof of passing the requisite examination
should be dated earlier than the due date (closing date) of
Detailed Application Form-I of the Civil Services (Main)
Examination. There is nothing wrong in UPSC strictly
adhering to this stipulation, being in the nature of an
eligibility criterion. The respondents are justified and
right in urging that this stipulation is inviolable as
expounded in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander
Shekhar & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 18 and subsequent
decisions of this Court which need not be multiplied.
8. At the same time, it cannot, however, be denied that
2020 was an abnormal and cataclysmal year due to the
ongoing pandemic, lockdowns and restrictions. UPSC
had to postpone their examination like all other
Universities/Boards. The results of the qualifying
examination in the case of petitioners, thus, got delayed.
This was entirely beyond control of the petitioners who
were certainly eligible on the date they appeared in the
preliminary examination and had qualified for the main
examination, in which they had appeared. Admittedly, the
96 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:03071497
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casespetitioners had attained the qualifying eligibility criteria
before the main examination was conducted by UPSC in
January, 2021 (i.e., between 08.01.2021 and 17.01.2021).
.. … …
12. Accordingly, we issue direction to UPSC to permit the
5 candidates, as a special case, to participate in the
personality test/interview in the respective categories in
which they have qualified. The addition of these 5
candidates would not be to the disadvantage of any
already empanelled candidate in the published list for
personality test/interview in the respective
branches/categories. We also clarify that this order
should not be treated as a precedent.”
60. This exceptional situation cannot be made a rule. In this
case, the petitioner (Ms. Divya) had an opportunity to obtain
I&AC from 01.04.2021 till 21.02.2022. In fact, admittedly she
obtained her EWS certificate for the F.Y. 2019-2020 on
09.10.2020 and obtained her I&AC for F.Y. 2021-2022 on
13.12.2022 but obtained her I&AC 2020-2021 only on
01.06.2023. If she was in a position to obtain a certificate for
F.Y. 2019-2020 on 09.10.2020 when the country was still
reeling under a heightened pandemic, there is no reason why
she could not have obtained her I&AC for the F.Y. 2021-2022
on any of the days between 01.04.2021 and 21.02.2022. We are
97 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
98
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
not satisfied with the explanation adduced by the petitioner.
Hence her claim challenging the e-mail cancelling the
candidature under the EWS category is also rejected.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
65. Insofar as Petition No.2 – Ashwani Dubey is concerned,
according to the petitioner, he was in possession of the I&AC
dated 25.01.2022 which mentioned the Financial Year as 2021-
2022. He received an intimation dated 10.01.2023 advising him
to make up the deficiencies and was requested to produce
original EWS Certificate for the F.Y. 2020-2021 in the
prescribed format issued on or before the cut-off date i.e.
22.02.2022, on the date of the Personality Test. According to
the petitioner, he obtained the Certificate from Tehsildar
Dindhori dated 16.01.2023 certifying that the Financial Year
mentioned as 2021-2022 was a mistake and it should be read as
2020-2021 in the Certificate dated 25.01.2022. He submitted
the clarification on 09.02.2023 when the Personality Test was
held.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
74. Could we fault this exercise of the UPSC in rejecting their
candidature under the EWS Category, is the question that arises
for consideration? We are constrained to conclude that we
cannot fault the method adopted by the UPSC. This is for the
reason that the UPSC has strictly acted in accordance with the
98 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
99
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
mandate of Rule 13 read with Rule 27 & 28. They had an
obligation to scrutinize the forms as uploaded with DAF-I.
Rules 13, 27 & 28 of the CSE-Rules 2022 are to be read with
the Office Memoranda of 19.01.2019 & 31.01.2019 especially
clause 5 of the Office Memorandum of 31.01.2019. The
examining body has not considered the defects as insignificant.
If this is so, then we have no option but to reject the writ
petitions of all the petitioners.
75. In our view, the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition (C)
Nos. 705 and 764 fails additionally, for being directly covered
by the judgment in Gaurav Singh‘s case (supra).
76. In T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and Another, (2008) 9 SCC
403, it has been held that the defect in the application form
which renders the candidate ineligible even if overlooked in the
initial screening and even if the candidate is called for the
interview, does not dis-entitle the examining body to hold the
candidate ineligible for selection at a later stage, once the
defect in the application comes to light.
77. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned counsel, who appeared for
the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 705 and 764 has submitted that
the communications by the UPSC asking them to make up the
deficiencies and to produce the certificate on the date of the
Personality Test should be treated as waiver of the rules. He
submitted that the communications are a clear indicia to
99 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
100
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
construe Rules 13, 27 & 28 as directory. We are not impressed
with the submission. The communications do not guarantee the
petitioners’ that their candidature would be accepted as valid.
In any event, these communications cannot be understood de
hors the rules.
78. The rules clearly mandate and as has been held in the case
of Gaurav Singh (supra), any mistake/omission/ negligence
cannot be condoned so as to extend the deadline for production
of the documents. Neither the Office Memorandum nor the rules
in question can be construed as directory. They prescribe
clearly the eligibility criterion and the date before which the
certificate should be possessed and the date before which the
certificate should be submitted. They also prescribe the
consequence for the omission. As the old ditty goes for a want of
a horseshoe nail, kingdoms have been lost. Here we are dealing
with crucial documents determining eligibility. The petitioners
who did not possess the valid documentation determining their
eligibility, before the prescribed cut-off date, cannot complain,
if their claim for categorization as EWS was rejected.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
80. It will be noticed that UPSC has considered these omissions
as trivial and as not going to the root of the eligibility, unlike in
the case of the petitioners herein. In Ajay Kumar Mishra v.
Union of India [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563, Indira Banerjee,
100 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
101
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench
of the Delhi High Court felicitously put the issue about the
examining body’s right to decide as to which errors are
material and which are inessential and trivial. We do nothing
more except to extract paras 6, 7 & 9 from the said judgment :-
“6. There can be no doubt that a candidate applying for a
government job, or for that matter, any job should fill in
the application form carefully. No candidate can claim
any vested right to rectification of arrears in an
application. Union Public Service Commission and the
State Public Service Commissions deal with lacs of
applications, which are received pursuant to an
advertisement. Such applications are required to be
processed within a short time. A candidate, who is not
short-listed and/or not allowed to participate in the
selection process by reason of his own laches in making
careless mistakes, cannot claim any right to be allowed to
participate in the selection process.
7. It is for the body conducting the selection process to
decide whether mistakes should be allowed to be
rectified, if so, whether they should be rectified within
any specific time and what are the mistakes which can be
allowed to be rectified and other similar questions.
However, in view of the mandate of Articles 14 to 16 of
101 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714102
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesthe Constitution of India, there should be no
discrimination or arbitrariness in deciding these
questions. All candidates applying for the particular
post/posts should be treated equally.
9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is
noticed in the application form and/or when any
suppression and/ or mis-representation is detected, the
candidature might be cancelled even after the application
has been processed and the candidate has been allowed
to participate in the selection process. However, after a
candidate has participated in the selection process and
cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can
only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of
the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors.”
81. In Gaurav Singh‘s case (supra) also the distinction between
a defect that is material and not material and the right of the
examining body to condone has been noticed. We hold that the
UPSC was justified, in the case of the petitioners, in denying the
benefit of categorization as EWS candidates.
82. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Counsel, made a valiant
attempt by drawing support from the letter of the UPSC dated
12.05.2023 by which the original EWS Certificate dated
19.02.2022 submitted by email dated 06.04.2023 by the
petitioner Ved Prakash Singh was returned. The UPSC has, in
102 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
103
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
their response, clarified that as a practice original documents
submitted after the Personality Test are returned, after scrutiny
and a standard format letter is used for the same. They have
also stated that since the Certificate produced by the candidate
was not as per Rules and conditions in the advertisement, the
same was returned and not accepted. In view of this, we find no
merit in that submission too.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
86. Based on the above discussion, our conclusions are as
under :-
i) The candidates claiming benefit of EWS Category for the
purpose of CSE-2022, acquire eligibility only if they meet the
criterion prescribed by the Central Government in the O.M.
dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 and are in possession of the
required Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC), based on the
income for the year 2020-21. Further, as required under Rule
28 of the CSE Rules, 2022 read with the O.M. of 19.01.2019
and 31.01.2019 the candidate should have been in possession of
the Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC) as on 22.02.2022. Any
candidate not in possession of the I&AC in the prescribed
format as mentioned herein above cannot claim the benefit of
EWS Category. Equally, as required under Rule 13 of the CSE
Rules, 2022 at the stage of DAF-I, the document in possession
as on 22.02.2022 in the prescribed format, had to be submitted
103 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714104
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesonline before the prescribed date. The UPSC was justified in
rejecting the candidature of those candidates claiming benefit
under the EWS Category if they had submitted their I&AC
beyond the stipulated deadline. This conclusion has to be read
with the reasoning in the judgment, particularly in paragraphs
39, 40 and 41 under the heading “Eligibility for EWS category
candidates for CSE-2022”.
ii) As a sequel to conclusion (i) above, we record that the UPSC
was justified in prescribing the cut-off date for possession and
for uploading of the I&AC in the prescribed format for
claimants claiming benefits under the EWS Category. This flows
from the O.M. dated 19.01.2019 & 31.01.2019 read with Rules
13, 27(3) and 28 of the CSE-Rules, 2022 and the long line of
judgments in which principles for prescription of cut-off for
eligibility are laid down.
iii) For the reasons set out in paragraphs 47 to 50 herein above
under the sub-heading “Legal Status of CSE-2022 Rules”, we
hold that the CSE-2022 Rules have the force of an enforceable
law. They are traceable to the All India Services Act, 1951 read
with the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1954 read with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment
by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955 and all this
read with Article 73 of the Constitution of India.
104 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
105
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
iv) Rules 13, 27(3) and 28 of the CSE-Rules, 2022 are
constitutionally valid for the reasons set out in para 61 herein
above under the sub-heading “Validity of CSE Rules, 2022 –
Validity of the cut-off date”.
v) The UPSC was justified in rejecting the claim of the
petitioners, for consideration under the EWS Category in CSE-
2022.
(33) Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the
respondent-Commission on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court
in the matter of ‘Raminder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others‘ reported
as 2022 (2) S.C.T. 795. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-
3. The reasoning given by the Learned Single Judge in the
first set of 3 appeals was that consideration under the
Reserved Category of Backward Class unlike the Scheduled
Caste was a shifting boundary on account of the income
limit as per the instructions of the Punjab Government and it
could not be compared to the members of the Scheduled
Caste Category who are governed by the status at birth
without any income criteria. Resultantly, it was held that the
petitioner had not produced the Backward Class certificate
on the date of the application within the range of one year
prior to the last date of application and she relied upon a
certificate dated 14.09.2007 which was stale and it could not
be her case that she was eligible on the date when she
105 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:23 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714106
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesapplied. Resultantly, keeping in view the conditions of the
advertisement wherein it was prescribed that all the
prescribed qualifications had to be fulfilled on the last date
of submission of the application and that said certificate
should be valid within a period of one year from the last
date of submission of the application, as per the instructions
issued on 17.01.1994 (Annexure P-4/1) and 17.08.2005
(Annexure P-15). It was held that the petitioner was fully
aware of the prescribed qualifications which had to be met
on or before the last date of submission of the application.
Resultantly, it was held that the instructions are directive in
nature and candidate could not insist that relaxation could
be awarded in the eligibility conditions.
xxxxxxxx
7. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Senior Counsel appearing in LPA-1233-
2016 has further supplemented the argument on the ground
that it was not an academic qualification but the
identification of the certified categories and only the current
fact has to be ascertained and therefore, the benefit should
have been granted by taking the cut-off as 15.12.2009. It is
further submitted that in compliance of the interim order
dated 21.08.2018, additional affidavit dated 31.07.2018 had
been filed and it was noticed that 34 posts in the Backward
Class category had been left vacant and the State had been
106 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
107
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
asked as to why the certificate claiming the benefit of Ex-
serviceman had not been accepted once the corrigendum
had been issued on 06.12.2009. The same had been wrongly
sought to be distinguished by the State by filing an affidavit
dated 22.01.2019 that the corrigendum related only to
certain set of candidates and not to Backward Class
Category candidates.
8. State Counsel has justified the action of the authorities on
the ground that the corrigendum never extended the cut-off
date to the present category of candidates. Neither any
persons who had got lessor marks had been appointed and
therefore, the recruitment process itself had come to an end
on 09.08.2013 (Annexure R-1) and the waiting list had also
been cancelled which was submitted along with the
additional affidavit dated 31.07.2018. Thus, it was argued
that the petitioners were not liable to be considered even if
the vacancies were available as the posts had again been
advertised in the year 2012.
xxxxxxxx
18. The appellant thus cannot rely upon the first certificate
dated 14.09.2007 which was only showing her family
income as less than Rs.2.50 lakhs per annum which was as
per the earlier instructions dated 17.08.2005 and therefore,
the currency of the said certificate had validly run out and
107 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
108
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
as per the terms of the advertisement, the same was not
liable to be taken into consideration. Thereafter the
certificate was issued only on 10.11.2009 (Annexure P-2)
and the same was after the cut-off date of 09.10.2009 and
therefore the same was rightly not taken into consideration.
It was the duty of the appellant-writ petitioner to have
obtained a valid certificate which had been issued prior to
the advertisement upto the extent of one year and thus, no
fault could be found with the action of the State which has
been duly noticed by the Learned Single Judge that the
income of the family can keep on fluctuating. It was not the
case of the appellant-writ petitioner that she fell under such
a Reserved Category wherein by virtue of birth in the said
category she was entitled to get the benefit irrespective of
the cut-off date.
xxxxxxxx
21. The judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) has also
been relied upon wherein the benefit was granted to a
candidate under the OBC category who submitted the
certificate after the last date. The said view is under re-
consideration by the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.14948 of
2016 titled Karn Singh Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
others and therefore the same would not be distinguishable
108 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
109
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
in the facts and circumstances. The said reference order
dated 24.01.2020 reads as under:
“In view of the acute problem of unemployment,
whenever few vacancies are notified by any public
authority, it is common that thousands of
applicants apply for such posts. If the applicants
are permitted to rectify applications after cut-off
dates, the same would render the scrutiny process
indefinite. In the course of such recruitment
process, many persons, though they belong to the
OBC category or SC/ST category, might not have
obtained the required caste certificate before the
cut-off date. Such persons, being law abiding and
being conscious of the bar contained in the
notification of the cut-off date, might not have
applied seeking employment. In case the authority
starts accepting caste certificates subsequent to the
prescribed cut-off dates whenever a candidate
approaches the authority, the remaining candidates
who had not applied would definitely be affected. If
the applicants are allowed to submit certificates in
proof of their claim of reservation subsequent to
the notified cut-off date, it would create
administrative chaos.
109 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714110
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesIn practice, for every advertisement, there are such
belated claims claiming reservation, though the
candidates did not submit certificate from the
competent authority, before the cut-off date. In
view of the general importance of the question, we
are of the view that the issue which fell for
consideration in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya
(supra) requires to be considered by a larger
Bench of three-Judges.
Accordingly, we refer the matter for consideration
by a larger Bench of three Judges. Registry to
place the papers before Hon’ble the Chief Justice
for appropriate orders.”
22. Rather on a subsequent occasion in the State of Bihar &
others v. Madhu Kant Ranjan & another 2022 (1) SCT 223
the Apex Court had set aside the judgment of the Division
Bench which had reversed the view of the Learned Single
Judge who had specifically noted that there was no pleading
in the writ petition that the petitioner had the NCC ‘B’
certificate. Relevant observations read as under:
“9. As per the settled proposition of law, a
candidate/applicant has to comply with all the
conditions/eligibility criteria as per the
advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned
110 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714111
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casestherein unless extended by the recruiting authority.
Also, only those documents, which are submitted
along with the application form, which are
required to be submitted as per the advertisement
have to be considered. Therefore, when the
respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner did not
produce the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate
along with the original application as per the
advertisement and the same was submitted after a
period of three years from the cut-off date and that
too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the
additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate. In
these circumstances, the Division Bench of the
High Court has erred in directing the appellants to
appoint the respondent No.1 – original writ
petitioner on the post of Constable considering the
select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five
additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present appeal succeeds, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside
and judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is
111 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714112
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesrestored. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.”
23. The argument raised by Mr. Sidhu that it was not an
academic qualification but an identification to a certain
reserved categories has already been dealt by the Learned
Single Judge. The consideration is to be on the basis of the
instructions issued by the Government dated 24.02.2009 and
the requisite certificate had to be obtained within a period of
one year for a candidate to fall in the Backward Class
category to claim the benefit of reservation. Therefore, the
eligibility has to be as per the instructions of the
Government itself and therefore, the argument that the
benefit has to be granted as it is only a fact which is to be
ascertained, cannot be accepted. The factual matrix can be
varying from candidate to candidate at the given point of
time as per the instructions. The applicant may be dependent
of a family who possess Government employment and if the
income goes beyond Rs.4.50 lakhs per annum, the candidate
would not be entitled to get benefit of the Reserved Category
on account of lack of financial exigency.
(34) He contends that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment in the
matter of Raminder Kaur (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the SLP against the same also stands dismissed.
112 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
113
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(35) Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the
respondent-Commission to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court
in the matter of ‘Sweety Nagar Vs. State of Haryana and another‘ reported
as 2022 (4) SCT 301. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-
“2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the
appellant applied for appointment pursuant to an advertisement
issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula,
dated 05.07.2019. Admittedly and undisputedly, the appellant
applied for the post of LDC under category No.26 in General
Category. At the time of selection and scrutiny of documents,
the appellant sought to change her category from General to
BC-B and for consideration of a claim against the post reserved
for BC-B category. The respondent-authorities vide order dated
13.07.2021 rejected the claim of the appellant being aggrieved
by which the appellant filed CWP-25698-2021 which has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order.
xxxxxxxx
6. From a perusal of Clause 1.2(f) of the Advertisement, it is
evident that no request for change of any particular on the
application form shall be entertained by the Haryana Staff
Selection Commission after the same has been filled. The
important note appended to clause 1.2 of the advertisement
makes this fact further clear, which is reproduced for the
purpose of convenience as under:
113 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714114
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases“Important Note:
1. Candidates are advised to fill their application form
carefully such as Name, Father’s/Mother’s name, Date of
Birth and Category, Qualification, marks obtained,
passing year, photo, Signature, details & fee etc. No
request for change of any particular on the online
application form shall be entertained by the Haryana
Staff Selection Commission after submission of
application form.
2. After final submission of application form, no change will
be allowed. Candidate will be responsible for any
mistake in the data of application form and fees paid by
him/her.
3. In case candidate feels that he/she has filled up the form
erroneously, he/she should fill up a fresh online
application form alongwith fresh requisite fee before
closing date.”
7. From a perusal of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear that
the authorities having contemplated such a situation and
having faced them in the past has inserted these important
notes in the advertisement cautioning every candidate and
advising them to carefully read the application form while
filling up the name, father’s name, mother’s name, date of birth
and category, qualification, marks obtained, passing year,
114 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
115
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
photo, signature, details and fee as no request for change of
any particular as mentioned in the online application would be
entertained subsequently. The clause further makes it clear that
any mistake in the application form would be the sole
responsibility of the candidate. The authorities have also been
cautious enough to include a clause permitting candidate to
change the details in the form and for that purpose in note No.3
has stated that in case the candidate feels that the form has
erroneously been filled up, he/she should fill up a fresh online
application along with fresh requisite fee before the closing
date. Apparently, the appellant was well aware of these notes in
spite of which no such fresh application seeking correction etc.
was filed by the appellant in the present case before the closing
date i.e. 25.07.2019, which is the last date by which any such
correction by way of a fresh application could have been
filled/applied by the candidate.”
(36) In support of the argument regarding change of category,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Commission has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
‘J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Ishar Ahmad & Anr.’ reported as
(2005) 12 SCC 498. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-
“6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both
the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be
accepted as he has not applied for selection as a candidate
115 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714116
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesentitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate
along with his application. The fact that he has not availed of
the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to
treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He
passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and
at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail
of reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting
the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and
status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could
only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for
the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the
status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not
correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the
qualification and the production of the certificate at a later
stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore,
we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the
appeal. No costs.”
(37) Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for respondent-
Commission on an order dated 12.05.2022 passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in LPA-380-2022 titled as ‘Suman Khatri Vs. Haryana Public
Service Commission‘. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-
3. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to
take this aspect into consideration as well as the decision of
Division Bench, rendered in the case of Usha Dhillon v.
116 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714117
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesState of Haryana and others, passed in 2015 (2) PLR 412,
and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside,
for, it suffers from material illegality and infirmity. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned
Single Judge also failed to consider another judgement of
Single Bench, passed in CWP No.31185 of 2018 (Robina v.
State of Haryana and others), decided on 20.05.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length
and perused the records.
5. From a perusal of the advertisement, issued by the
authorities, pursuant to which, the appellant applied for
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Political
Science), clause 1(d&e) and note appended thereto are
material and decisive to decide this appeal. For, it envisage
that a candidate must make sure about the category in which
he/she applies and no change in this regard would be
permitted. Further, in case, a candidate applies under the
physically handicapped category then he/she is also
required to specify whether the physically handicapped
candidate belongs to the general/SC/BC-A/BC-B category.
The relevant clauses are as under:-
“(d) No request regarding any change in any entry
i.e. Name, DOB, Educational Qualifications,
Experience, Category etc. In the on line application
117 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714118
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected casesform will be entertained by the Commission. So the
candidates are advised to read the instructions
carefully before applying on line. Incomplete
application form and application without fee will
be rejected straight way and no correspondence
will be entertained in the regard by the
Commission.
(e) The online application can be filled up to
15.04.2019 at 05:00 PM by using Commission’s
website after which the link will be disabled. The
candidates are strictly advised to apply on line in
time without waiting for last date of submission of
on line application. No offline application form will
be accepted by the office. Eligibility with regards
qualifications, any certificate and other conditions
of eligibility etc. will be determined as on last date
of submission of on line application forms i.e.
15.04.2019 (Closing date).
Note:
1. The Service Rules of this post are available at
website WWW.highereduhry.com.
2. In case of any clarification, office of HPSC may
be contacted.
118 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714119
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
3. The candidates belonging to the category of
PH(PwD i.e. Person with Disabilities) will enclose
necessary certificates with their application form
from a Competent Authority in support of their
claim of Disability. All such certificates should
clearly mention the type of disabilities as defined in
the Govt. Letter dated 25.04.2018.
4. The candidates claiming benefit/reservation
under ESM/ESP i.e. Eligible Sports Person/PH
(Pw D i.e. Person with Disabilities) category of
Haryana are directed to also fill their respective
category i.e. General/SC/BC-‘A’/BC-‘B’ to which
they belong”.
6. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the
appellant applied in the general category, and not as a
physically handicapped candidate. It is not disputed either
that the appellant while filling up the application form
mentioned ‘No’ in column No.24 of the form which relates to
Physically Handicapped Category. Further, in the said form
she did not mention if she was/is a physically handicapped
general category candidate, but simply stated that she
applied as a general category candidate. Evidently, she did
not comply with the requirements, in terms of, clause 1 of
the advertisement. Not only that, in terms of, clause 1(b&e)
119 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
120
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
of the advertisement, eligibility, category and qualification
has to be determined on the last basis of date of submission
of the application form which, in the present case, was
15.04.2019. The record shows for, the appellant applied in
the general category, she was issued an admit card by the
authorities to appear in the examination under general
category. However, while appearing in the examination she
clearly mentioned PH(OH) in the OMR sheet and it was on
account of this fact that the result of the appellant was
declared under the PH(OH) category on 12.12.2019.
However, on scrutiny of documents, it was found that she
had in fact applied in the general category and, therefore,
her candidature was considered under the general category
and was rejected as persons more meritorious than her were
available in that category. Learned Single Judge has
recorded a finding and we are also in respectful agreement
therewith that no representation dated 01.10.2019, was ever
submitted by her, as is sought to be alleged in the petition.
There is no acknowledgement in this regard and the same
has categorically been denied by the respondents-
authorities. It is, significant to note, in case, there was any
confusion under clause 1 and note (ii) of the advertisement,
she was free to obtain any clarification from the office of the
Haryana Public Service Commission, before filling up the
120 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
121
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
application form as provided in the advertisement.
Admittedly, she had not done so. In such circumstances, the
respondents-authorities have rejected her claim.
7. Leaned counsel for the appellant submits that in similar
case, the Division Bench of this Court in Usha Dhillon
(supra) had permitted the petitioner to change her category.
Having examined the said decision, we are of the considered
opinion that reliance placed thereon by learned counsel for
the appellant is wholly misplaced. The claim of the
petitioner in the said case was considered in isolation of
Clause 1 (d) and (e) and Note that have been referred to by
us in the preceding paragraph. Further, in that case even
before the last date of filing the application form, the
candidate had sought correction in the application form. But
that is not the position in the present case. As, no such
clarification was sought or made by the appellant prior to
the last date of filling up of the application form.
8. We have also taken into consideration this fact that the
learned Single Judge has dismissed the case of the appellant
by placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court ,
rendered in the case of J & K Public Service Commission v.
Israr Ahmad and others, 2005 (1) SCC 498, wherein the
Supreme Court has held that the candidate has chosen to opt
121 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
122
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later
change the status and make a fresh claim.
Rebuttal Arguments:
(38) Responding to the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the respondent-Commission, counsel for the petitioners submit that even
though an emphatic reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the
respondent-Commission on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Divya (supra), however, the said judgment would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case considering that in the said
judgment statutory rules had been notified by the Government under Article
309 of the Constitution of India prescribing a cutoff date whereas, no such
rules exist in the present case. Moreover, there was no eligibility certificate
i.e. EWS certificate attached by the petitioner in the said case which is not
the case in hand and the petitioners had duly appended the certificates in
support of their claim, but it was only not in the desired format as notified
and that the eligibility of the petitioners is nowhere being disputed or denied
by the respondents.
(39) Responding to the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent-Commission that only the last date of submission of online
application had been extended and the date of eligibility would not ipso
facto stands extended as a result thereof, counsel contends that ‘closing
date’ has been defined in the advertisement as ‘the last date for submission
of online application’ and as such, no distinction can be carved by the
Commission by contending that the corrigendum only extended the date of
122 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
123
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
submission of online application form, since the definition of closing date
itself equates to the last date of submission of online application as well as
the eligibility. Hence, the eligibility is to be seen in terms thereof and would
thus automatically deemed to be extended to 20.08.2024.
(40) Responding to the submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent-Commission about the change of category not being permissible,
learned counsel for the petitioner(s) in Neha Dhiman‘s case has argued that
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J&K Public
Service Commission (supra) as well as in the Division Bench’s order in the
matter of Suman Khatri (supra) would not be applicable since the petitioner
is not seeking a change of the category. The specific document in support of
the category under which she is claiming the benefit had already been
appended by her alongwith her application as well and, hence, once the
supporting document clearly establishes beyond doubt that the selection of a
category (creamy) was only an inadvertent mistake, then such mistake ought
not to be held sufficient to deny the right of consideration to the petitioner in
the respective category.
(41) No other argument has been raised nor any other judgment
cited.
Consideration:
(42) I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
have gone through the documents appended with the present writ petition
and the judgments cited by the respective parties.
123 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
124
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(43) To proceed further, it becomes essential to ascertain whether
the certificate sought for by the Commission is an “eligibility” or is a “proof
of eligibility”.
(44) In its ordinary understanding, an ‘eligibility’ refers to ‘a
requirement that meets the necessary criteria for the required purpose’ while
‘proof of eligibility’ is understood as ‘a document which establishes
fulfillment of the eligibility’. A proof is hence the evidence to show that the
eligibility requirement is met on the date when it was required. In the above
understanding it now has to be analysed as to whether the certificate issued
for the “non-creamy layer” by the competent authority is the eligibility or a
proof of eligibility. The eligibility for availing the benefit of reservation
under the ‘non-creamy layer’ and the parameters/requirements for the same
are prescribed by the government from time to time. Government thus
prescribes parameters for exclusion of creamy layer on the basis of service
categories; property ownership (agricultural and otherwise) and income and
wealth etc. Hence, if a person falls under the said description or category, he
would not be eligible for being included in the ‘non-creamy layer’ segment.
(45) The government instructions of 22.03.2022, referred to in the
advertisement in reference to the obtaining of the certificate pertain to the
issuance of caste certificate through the SARAL portal and prescribed the
guidelines for the same. The same was not providing any condition of
eligibility but was only the revised guidelines laid down for issuance of a
verified caste certificate, after the coming into force of the Haryana Parivar
Pehchan Patra Act, 2021 and the availability of the database containing
124 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
125
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
eligibility for different schemes for subsidy or services etc. In the said
background, the notification of 2021 as well as instruction of 2022 have to
be examined as per the advertisement.
(46) For claiming benefit of reservation under the ‘non-creamy
layer’ or ‘EWS’, as the case may be, the notification for the year 2021
prescribed the criteria/requirements of eligibility. The eligibility thus is to be
ascertained from the criteria prescribed in the notification for the given
financial year. If a person does not fall in any of the described categories for
creamy layer, as per the notification dated 17/11/2021, he is eligible to claim
the said benefit of ‘non-creamy layer’ in services or under other beneficial
schemes.
(47) The certificate issued by the authority is thus a proof of
fulfilling the eligibility as per the requirements as laid down under the
notification. The government instructions dated 22/3/2022 provide for
guidelines to obtain the certificate from the SARAL portal, hence, it only
prescribes a simplified procedure for obtaining the verified certificate. The
same thus cannot be even construed as a document for proof of eligibility on
a fair reading and interpretation of the same. The respondent commission
has however construed the certificate to be the eligibility whereas in its
essence, it only certifies the existence of the eligibility in terms of the
parameters prescribed.
(48) Now adverting to the question of the cut-off date and as to
whether late submission of the certificate would render the candidate
ineligible or not.
125 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
126
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(49) For examining the same, it has to be kept in mind that
reservation is imbibed as a constitutional feature to provide equality of
opportunity in its real import and essence. The object of providing a
classification between ‘creamy’ and ‘non-creamy’ layer is further devised to
ensure that the benefit of reservation is extended to the actual needy and
marginalized person even from amongst the reserved castes and the same do
not remain concentrated in the hands of those who have already reaped the
benefits. With that object in mind, the criteria and eligibility for ‘non-creamy
layer’ is provided.
(50) Undisputedly, the certificate for ‘non-creamy layer’ issued is
valid for one financial year commencing from 1st April every year and is
valid up to 31st March of the next year. The income and assets over the last
three years lay the basis for determining the eligibility criteria for issuance
of the certificate, hence, the actual date of issuance of the certificate
becomes insignificant and inconsequential. The eligibility criteria for
issuance of certificate having been laid down on a fixed date and having
validity for a fixed duration, there is no probability of any undue advantage
in a mere delay in obtaining the certificate of eligibility. The sanctity of the
certificate does not get compromised irrespective of the date of its issuance.
Only if the criteria for creamy layer would have been 12 months preceding
the date of issuance of the certificate, a person could have manipulated his
income to fall below the ‘creamy layer’ requirement and thus acquire an
eligibility which he may not otherwise fulfill. The same not being the case
126 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
127
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
here, hence, the delayed issuance of certificate would have no ultimate
impact on the eligibility of the person.
(51) Hence, the cutoff date in such circumstances would not be
given much significance or may occasion defeating the object of the
reservation scheme. An undue over-significance thus should not be attached
to the cut-off date for certificate in a prescribed format as it does not tend to
advance any object and is rather only propelled by the desire to complete the
process expeditiously.
(52) This court thus is enjoined upon to decide whether an intent to
expedite the selection process should be sufficient to justify upholding the
said clause to disqualify meritorious people or it must be propelled by the
constitutional objective to protect rights of the individuals who have scored
higher marks in the order of merit than the candidates who is otherwise
likely to be recommended for public appointment. A court of law would
ordinarily champion merit over a technical rejection and is required to keep
in mind that the laws are made for people and not vice-versa. Any
ministerial or robotic enforcement of the letter of law potentially increases
the risk of losing the soul behind the law. The object behind all laws being to
ultimately protect and promote welfare, well being and security of the men,
its implementation cannot be done treating the human beings as things. The
insensitivity in dealing with the real problems and inadvertent human error
with the touch that it deserves, dehumanizes the growth of mankind,
sacrifices aspiration, expectations and prospects at an altar of technicality.
The same certainly is not the object behind law. I find support in my above
127 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
128
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
view from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram
Kumar Gijroya (supra); Dolly Chanda (supra); as well as from the judgment
of Charles K. Skaria (supra), noticeably as well as from the other judgments
cited by the counsel for the petitioners.
(53) Other crucial factors that require to be noticed and that weigh
with this court in coming to the above conclusion are that the candidates had
appended old certificates/PPP’s and also obtained the new ‘non-creamy
layer’ certificate, since new instructions had been issued by the state
government between the closing date and the show cause notice sent to the
petitioners informing them of their ineligibility and seeking response. The
income certificate under the new notification was increased from 6 to 8
lakhs per annum. Thus, all the petitioners continued to remain eligible and it
is not that the criteria became stringent as would exclude certain petitioners
from being included under the ‘non-creamy layer’ category. They thus were
and continue to remain in the same category.
(54) At the same time, the Govt. instructions of 22/3/2022 relating to
the procedure for issuance of caste certificate under the SARAL portal
shows that the Parivar Pehchan Patra, which is now made as a mandatory
document under the Act of 2021, assigns a distinct unique ID and the Citizen
Resource Information Department (CRID) records a verified detail of family
income. Even though essentially portrayed as a caste certificate related
instruction, verification of family income under the ‘non-creamy layer’
certificate is also done from the same source as both these certificates are
being issued and maintained by the same authority/department i.e. Citizen
128 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
129
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
Resource Information Department. The petitioners had already filled up their
PPP ID Number, which is a unique ID and has the primary database for
verification of the different certificates to be issued thereunder as well,
which sufficiently establishes the eligibility of the petitioners even
otherwise.
(55) All the petitioners had mentioned their PPP ID and filling up
the same, all other data automatically gets uploaded/accessible. Hence,
status and information about the petitioners was already available with the
HPSC but it has seemingly not made any efforts to revisit the terms and
conditions of the advertisement except for cosmetic changes and retained the
structured advertisement. Had they been alive to the new directions as well
as the Act of 2021, there may actually not have been any need for such
additional documents to be filed, which are apparently nothing more than
duplicity and multiplicity of certificates based on extracts of Parivar
Pehchan Patra and information available thereunder. The commission has
thus proceeded to seek compliance mechanically rather than any justified
reasons for the same and notwithstanding that the eligibility of petitioners, as
on the closing date, was already available with them from the other
document- which is in fact the primary document.
(56) Still further, the State Government does not deny the issuance
of the said certificates later in point of time in favour of the petitioners or
even their eligibility on cutoff date and even during the course of arguments,
they have remained largely non-contesting. Furthermore, so far as the
validity of the documents or eligibility is concerned, the Commission is not
129 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
130
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
vested with the authority or powers or function to determine validity or
legality of such documents and the same is to be ascertained by the State
Government before offering an appointment to a candidate. Merely because
a person had participated in the selection process, on the strength of certain
documents, on the basis whereof a recommendation has been made, does not
hold such a candidate entitled to an appointment or estop the Government
from ascertaining his eligibility. In the event such a document is found to be
false or invalid, the State is always within its power to not accept the
recommendation or to remove a person/candidate from service, if already
appointed.
(57) The claim in hand is being examined also from another angle.
Assuming that in the given circumstance, any of the candidates/petitioners
would have furnished a document(s), which was forged/fabricated or such a
document had been obtained by a candidate/petitioner by a mischievous act
or on account of concealment of vital information from the issuing authority.
Under such circumstances, the respondent-Haryana Public Service
Commission would have nonetheless treated such a person as an eligible
candidate and made an appropriate recommendation of such candidate in the
respective category for which such a person would have applied. I find no
reason as to why the claim of an eligible candidate be put at a lower pedestal
than a person who is mischievous and may have commited a fraud. In case,
the respondent-Commission pleads that it is not a nodal agency for
determining the correctness of the documents and that the same is within
domain of the appointing authority viz. the Government, hence, merely
130 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
131
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
because the documents in support of the claim has been submitted later,
which conclusively establishes the eligibility as on the cutoff date, no
prejudice should ordinarily be inflicted upon such candidate.
(58) Now adverting to the argument of the respondent regarding a
right having accrued in favour of other persons (who otherwise would not
fall in the merit list in case the candidature of the petitioners is accepted), the
same is rejected as misplaced. It is not a case where the petitioners, despite
not being eligible, had been allowed to participate in the process of
selection. It is in fact an instance where the petitioners have competed with
all others including the persons who are now perceived to tentatively figure
in the list of candidates to be recommended. Having competed with the said
candidates in the same selection process and having secured more marks
than the others, the petitioners would not be infringing upon any right of any
other person. There would be no right in favour of any candidate to steal a
march over more meritorious candidate merely by seeking rejection of other
candidates on technicalities that may have crept in at the stage of submission
of certain documents and/or certain errors/omission committed by them
while filling up an application form. Alleviating the same to a status of
accrual of a right in their favour takes away all powers that may otherwise
be vested with the Commission to rectify any such mistake. Derogation of
power of the Commission to remedy the defect, under an assumed right in a
candidate, is not only uncalled for but is also undesirable.
131 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
132
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(59) The right in each candidate is only to the extent of being
provided with an equal opportunity to compete with all others, unassuming
that a defect or error may be noted in their application form.
(60) Even though there sure is some element of an error in document
of proof of eligibility not being prior to the closing date but, the said mistake
should not be held out as an extreme punishment and be perceived sufficient
to annihilate all future career prospects of the candidate, more importantly
those who know that but for the said mistake they would have been
appointed to Government service. Needless to impress that a government job
in gazetted services is a dream for even the well settled and it sure is a step
on cloud nine for the marginalized segment of the society. Shattered
aspirations emanating from a self inflicted cause leads to desperation and
may proceed to self destruction.
(61) Mistakes are not to be equated to offenses for which a person
needs to be penalized. While the law and society look forward to the
schemes to rehabilitate even the offenders by granting opportunities and
generosity. Why should the same approach be denied to someone who
ignorantly or out of anxiety or under certain circumstances ended up
committing a mistake and more so when such error does not impeach the
fairness of the selection.
(62) Any form of governance or rule of law which feasts on merit to
nurture mediocrity is surely on a path to decline. Leaving out a meritorious
candidate to make way for reduced merit does not advance any greater
public good.
132 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
133
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(63) A person cannot be made to suffer lifelong for his/her mistake
when such a mistake does not in any manner infringe upon or cast doubt
upon the sanctity of the process of selection or the recommendation made. It
is not the case of the respondent-State or the Public Service Commission that
the process of the selection was in any manner compromised or that the
petitioners have taken any unfair advantage or marks on the basis whereof,
in the event of consideration of candidature of the petitioners, they would be
infringing upon any accrued right in favour of the other respondents. A
substantive right must be shown to exist in favour of other candidates and it
should not flow from any remote inferences or conclusions.
(64) Further, this Court also has taken note of the specific contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-
Commission has been following a similar uniform practice in the various
earlier selection processes undertaken by it. In reference to the process of
selection undertaken by it for the Post Graduate Teachers in different
streams, notices for submission of representation, similar to the present
advertisement, were issued to them as well and the rectification had been
allowed. The recommendation of such candidates, who were initially issued
provisional communication about ineligibility, has also been made after they
submitted fresh certificates. The argument of the respondent- Commission
that the said notice was only to afford an opportunity to point out the
mistake, if any, carried out at the ends of the Commission in communicating
the provisional ineligibility to the petitioners could be rectified, thus stands
contradicted by their own conduct in other selection processes undertaken by
133 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
134
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
them, wherein the documents have been allowed to be submitted even later
in point of time and that the candidates therein have still been considered
eligible by the respondent-Commission. Such a shift in the stand by
Constitutional authority is impermissible and that uniformity has to be
followed by the respondent-Commission. A consistent and continuous
practice itself gives birth to legitimate expectations in favour of each
candidate and to assume that the purpose behind issuance of the notice was
only to rectify the defect, if any, on the part of the candidate in submission
of his/her documents. The understanding of the letter has to be seen in the
context of the procedure that has been followed successively by the
Commission and where in other selection process, the candidates were
allowed to participate and they would not earn any disqualification only on
the late submission of the documents as a proof of eligibility from the
perspective of the candidate. A shift from the consistent stand in the instant
selection process would cause travesty of justice and is thus not acceptable.
(65) Under the given circumstances and considering the rival
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
the respondents, I am of the opinion that so far as the judgment in the matter
of Divya (supra) is concerned, the same was passed in light of the specific
Rules that were in force and when no document had been appended by the
petitioner therein for claiming benefit under the EWS category. In the
present cases, the factual aspect does not support the same in as much as not
only there are no statutory Rules but also the petitioners herein had
appended some documents in support of them belonging to the respective
134 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
135
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
categories and being eligible to claim the benefit under the said category and
they were held ineligible only for the reason of its not being in the form as
asked for. The subsequent certificate issued by the authority as per the
instructions/Notifications also supports the claim made by the petitioner that
they fell in non-creamy layer. Hence, there was no change in so far as the
ultimate eligibility of the petitioners is concerned. The judgments in the
matter of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and Karan Singh Yadav (supra) lead
the position in law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same
was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Staff
Selection Commission Vs. Subhash Chand (supra) laying down law
promoting and intending to enlarge the interest of justice by balancing
equities and satisfying the expectations.
(66) While referring to the issue of Neha Dhiman, I am of the
opinion that the judgments in the matters of J&K Public Service
Commission (supra) and Suman Khatri (supra) relate to an eventuality
where a person had originally not appended any document in respect of the
category under which a specific claim is being sought for. It was only later
that the petitioner sought a change of his category from the original category
wherein he had applied. Per contra in the given case, the petitioner had
specifically appended the requisite certificate in support of the category
wherein she is claiming to be considered. Besides, the representation was
immediately forwarded by her to the respondent-Public Service Commission
pointing out that necessary documents already stands submitted and the
mistake in clicking the creamy layer was inadvertent and by mistake.
135 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
136
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
(67) This Court in Renu Sharma and others Vs. Haryana Public
Service Commission reported as 2025 NCPHHC 008003 has held that
inadvertent error should not be escalated to an extent which lead only to the
extreme conclusions and that interest of justice would be better served in
case inadvertence is allowed to be condoned so that the expectations of a
citizen for public appointment are not defeated and they don’t live under a
constant curse.
(68) It is also noticed by this Court that the respondent-Commission
in the present case, in relation to persons belonging to different nationalities
in Clause 9 of the advertisement, have notified the need to verify the
eligibility before offering of appointment. While in the present scenario they
are insisting upon the certificate of eligibility of petitioners only on or before
12.07.2024, in the same process of selection they have thus prescribed a
different date for consideration of eligibility of documents for others. I find
that there could have been no legitimate basis for setting two different dates
and if such a concession is already being made available by the respondent-
Commission to a specified section of the candidates, there was no
justification as to why such an opportunity could not have been extended to
the other candidates as well.
(69) Notwithstanding the observations recorded above, the
Government of Haryana is still at liberty to verify the documents that have
been appended by the respective petitioners in support of their respective
application forms and in the event of the declaration/claim made by them
being found to be factually incorrect or having been obtained by fraud or
136 of 137
::: Downloaded on – 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030714
137
228 CWP-1262-2025 (O&M) and connected cases
malpractices, the competent authority shall always be at liberty to cancel
such an appointment or to reject such a recommendation made by the
respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission and take appropriate action.
(70) This Court has not gone into the validity of the documents
submitted by each petitioner and has dealt only with the legal issue as
regards the eligibility and entitlement.
(71) The order of the respondent-Commission holding the
petitioners in these writ petitions ineligible is hence held liable to be set
aside and the writ petitions deserves to be allowed. The Commission is
further directed to re-determine the eligibility of the petitioners on the
strength of documents furnished by them consequent to the show cause
notice sent by the Commission. If the petitioners are found to be eligible as
on the cutoff date, from the said documents, and are also meritorious, their
result be declared in the respective category and an appropriate
recommendation be made.
(72) The writ petitions as well as the application(s) stand(s) disposed
of accordingly.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
15.02.2025 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
137 of 137
::: Downloaded on - 14-03-2025 22:10:24 :::
[ad_1]
Source link