HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION versus PRIYANKA & ORS. ETC. ETC. on 1 September 2021

O R D E R

DLeave granted.

The appellant had issued an advertisement inviting applicationsfor appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Teachers, for which, thequalifying degree was B.Ed. The advertisement was issued on 28.06.2015and the last date for submission of the application was 12.10.2015. TheErequirement was that on the date of submission of the application thecandidate should have passed B.Ed.

The undisputed facts in this case are that the private respondentshad appeared in the B.Ed examination of the respective Universitiesand although the final result was not declared but the private respondentsF(candidates for the post) were, on their demand, provided with theprovisional/confidential result of their B.Ed. examination by the respectiveuniversities, which was prior to 12.10.2015. On the basis of suchprovisional/confidential result provided to the private respondents/candidates, they applied for the post of Post-graduate Teachers prior tothe last date of submission of the application, which was 12.10.2015.GSuch facts are not in dispute before us.

The only ground on which the candidature of the privaterespondents was rejected by the appellant/Commission is that the resultof the private respondents/candidates had not been officially declaredby the respective Universities prior to the cut off date, i.e. 12.10.2015,H

and the provisional/confidential result (certificates) which were issuedin favour of the private respondents/candidates thus could not be thebasis on which they could have applied in response to the advertisementdated 28.06.2015.

Challenging the said order of rejection, the respondents filed writpetitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and thereafteraffirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the intra courtappeals filed by the appellant/Commission. Aggrieved by the said ordersof the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court by way offiling Special Leave to Appeals.

We have heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counselappearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned seniorcounsel along with Ms. Garima Bajaj, learned AOR for the contestingrespondents/original writ petitioners and perused the record.

The short question which was raised before the High Court andalso before us is as to whether the provisional/confidential result declaredby the Universities would be a validly declared result or not. The questionhas been considered by the High Court in detail and it has been held infavour of the candidates. In our view also, as long as the authenticity ofthe provisional/confidential result declared by the Universities is not indoubt, which in the present case has been confirmed by the Universitieson the request made by the appellant/commission, the view taken by theHigh Court is perfectly justified. It cannot be said that the respondentswere not qualified as on the cut off date, which was 12.10.2015, as theprovisional/confidential result had been declared by the respectiveUniversities in favour of the candidates prior to the said date and theapplications were filed by the respondents well within time, along withsuch provisional/confidential result. As such, to this extent, we are notinclined to interfere with the order impugned in these appeals.

Mr. Maninder Singh has then pointed out that the High Court hasgone further in directing/advising the appellant/Commission to suitablyamend its Rules to the extent that the date of eligibility should be as onthe date of screening or interview. The relevant portion of the judgmentof the High Court which offends the appellant/Commission, is extractedbelow:

“…………..For that the Haryana Staff Selection Commissioncould conveniently amend the Rules and/or the condition to ensure

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

670SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Athat the date of eligibility is to be seen as on the date of Screeningor the interview. Some of the Institutions have already done thesame.

Therefore, we direct the Haryana Staff SelectionCommission as well as State of Haryana that, for future, considerBthe recommendations of this Court that the eligibility of educationalqualification should be considered at the time of Screening orinterview so that the candidates whose results are declared late,do not suffer and lose the chance to compete for the said post andpossible selection.”

CIn our view, such directions, as have been issued by the HighCourt, were not necessary in the present case. As such in our opinion,since the said question was not in issue, the High Court ought not tohave directed as aforesaid. We, thus, quash the aforesaid directions asissued in the portion of the judgment as quoted above.

DSubject to the aforesaid, these appeals are dismissed.

All pending intervention applications stand disposed of.

Since this Court had, vide interim order dated 27.11.2018, directedthat 90 posts be kept vacant by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission/appellant i.e., 74 posts for the private respondents herein and remainingE16 posts for the intervenors who had till then filed intervention applications,we direct that the said 90 posts be offered to the 74 private respondentsand 16 intervenors (who have filed the intervention application prior tothe passing of the order dated 27.11.2018) within four weeks from today,and they shall be given appointment on due verification, without anyFdelay.

It is further provided that the aforesaid 90 candidates shall beplaced just below the candidates who have already joined and the seniorityof the 90 candidates shall be on the basis of the inter se merit amongthem. The respondents shall not be entitled to any salary for the periodthey have not worked, and they would only be entitled for their dueGseniority with increment, if any, as their appointment shall be deemed tobe notionally from the date of appointment of other candidates who wereearlier selected and appointed in response to the advertisement dated28.06.2015.

H

Ankit Gyan