Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a letters patent appeal filed against the order dated 15-02-2023, passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the provisional select list of Science Master cadre prepared by the respondents was dismissed, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma*, JJ., stated that once it was certified that the appellant passed the examination in May, 2017, the recruitment agencies who were presumed to be consisting of members of experts, rather than going into the date of issuance of certificate, should consider the date of passing of the examination. The Court stated that these were all procedural lapses/delays for which the students/candidates/aspirants for job should not suffer. The recruitment agencies should be prudent enough to select best candidates by ignoring procedural lapses in the documents.
The Court stated that the appellant secured 98 marks out of 150, therefore, the appellant being meritorious candidate could not be denied appointment for procedural lapse(s). Thus, the Court held that the date of passing of examination would be considered in every document by the recruitment agencies and not the date of issuance of degrees and accordingly directed the respondents to give an appointment letter to the appellant.
Background
The appellant appeared in the two years B.Ed Course for the session 2015 to 2017. Online provisional result for the fourth semester was shown as ‘RLR/Pass’ which meant that there was some technical defect in the registration of the appellant with the University. The State of Punjab issued an advertisement, inviting applications to fill the backlog and new vacancies under various Master cadre. Since, the appellant possessed B.Sc., B.Ed. degrees, she applied for Master Cadre (Science) in General category and was issued Roll number as well.
Thereafter, the appellant appeared in the written examination and secured 98 marks out of 150. Subsequently, all the candidates who secured 85 marks and above, were called for scrutiny of original documents. However, the appellant was not called for scrutiny of documents, even though she secured more marks than the cut-off marks. Thus, she made a representation to the authority concerned, stating that due to financial hardship and serious illness of her father, she was unable to pay the requisite fee to obtain her certificate from the University. The appellant stated that though the result was declared on 06-09-2017 and she was declared pass in the same, but the certificate was received on 10-10-2022.
The petition filed by the appellant was rejected by the Single Judge on the ground that the last date for submission of the required certificate was 15-05-2022 and the date of issuance of certificate was 10-10-2022 i.e. after the cut-off date of eligibility. Thus, the present appeal was filed. The question to be determined before the Court was whether the date of passing of examination or the date of issuance of certificate was required to be taken into consideration for the recruitment.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the appellant also appeared in the counselling with original documents, and since date of issuance of certificate of B.Ed. was 10-10-2022, the appellant was denied appointment. The Court stated that the perusal of the certificate showed that the appellant passed B.Ed examination in May 2017 and since due to financial condition, she did not deposit the requisite fee and deposited the same vide receipt dated 22-09-2022, the certificate was issued on 10-10-2022.
The Court stated that once it was certified that the appellant passed the examination in May 2017, the recruitment agencies who were presumed to be consisting of members of experts, rather than going into the date of issuance of certificate, should consider the date of passing of the examination. The Court stated that these were all procedural lapses/delays for which the students/candidates/aspirants for job should not suffer. Further, some time there was also lapse/delay on the part of certain educational institutions, in issuance of marks sheet/degrees. Therefore, the recruitment agencies should take into consideration the date and year of passing of the examination and not the date of issuance of the certificate.
The Court clarified that if in any exceptional cases, there was some doubt regarding authenticity of the marks sheet/date of declaration of results, the candidate should be issued appointment letter subject to the condition of their being retained in the job as per the verification of the educational qualification certificates with respect to the date and authenticity of the document. It would reduce the unnecessary litigation and would encourage all the meritorious candidates. The recruitment agencies should be prudent enough to select the best candidate by ignoring procedural lapses in the documents.
The Court stated that the appellant secured 98 marks out of 150, therefore, the appellant being meritorious candidate could not be denied appointment for procedural lapse(s). The Court stated that poverty was a hard reality of life, and poor parents often sacrifice their own needs, even cutting back on meals, to provide the best education for their children. Despite the family’s financial struggles, meritorious candidates like the appellant should not be overlooked, as doing so would discourage such candidates.
The Court stated that it was not the respondents’ case that the appellant was ineligible before the cut-off date, nor did she failed to produce the provisional result for her fourth semester. Further, it was also not the respondents’ case that the appellant did not submit the requisite document before the cut-off date. In the competitive examinations, the candidates work hard and make their best efforts to secure good marks, therefore, only because of the date of issuance of degree/certificate, they should not be denied appointment as these were only procedural delays/lapses.
The Court clarified to all the recruitment agencies of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh that in such kind of cases where the date or year of passing of the examination was mentioned, the date of issuance of certificate or degree should be totally ignored. Thus, the Court held that the date of passing of examination would be considered in every document by the recruitment agencies and not the date of issuance of degrees and accordingly directed the respondents to give an appointment letter to the appellant.
[Harpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 9324, decided on 09-08-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sudeepti Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Sonia G. Singh, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab; Divya Godara, Advocate.
