Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs Priyanka

REPORTABLE 2021 INSC 436

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5065-5095 OF 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 25184-25214/2018)

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

PRIYANKA & ORS. ETC.ETC. RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant had issued an advertisement inviting

applications for appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Teachers,

for which, the qualifying degree was B.Ed. The advertisement was

issued on 28.06.2015 and the last date for submission of the

application was 12.10.2015. The requirement was that on the date of

submission of the application the candidate should have passed

B.Ed.

The undisputed facts in this case are that the private

respondents had appeared in the B.Ed examination of the respective

Universities and although the final result was not declared but the

private respondents (candidates for the post) were, on their

demand, provided with the provisional/confidential result of their

B.Ed. examination by the respective universities, which was prior

to 12.10.2015. On the basis of such provisional/confidential result

provided to the private respondents/candidates, they applied for

the post of Post-graduate Teachers prior to the last date of 2

submission of the application, which was 12.10.2015. Such facts are

not in dispute before us.

The only ground on which the candidature of the private

respondents was rejected by the appellant/Commission is that the

result of the private respondents/candidates had not been

officially declared by the respective Universities prior to the cut

off date, i.e. 12.10.2015, and the provisional/confidential result

(certificates) which were issued in favour of the private

respondents/candidates thus could not be the basis on which they

could have applied in response to the advertisement dated

28.06.2015.

Challenging the said order of rejection, the respondents filed

writ petitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and

thereafter affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the

intra court appeals filed by the appellant/Commission. Aggrieved by

the said orders of the High Court, the appellant has approached

this Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeals.

We have heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned

senior counsel along with Ms. Garima Bajaj, learned AOR for the

contesting respondents/original writ petitioners and perused the

record.

The short question which was raised before the High Court and

also before us is as to whether the provisional/confidential result

declared by the Universities would be a validly declared result or

not. The question has been considered by the High Court in detail

and it has been held in favour of the candidates. In our view also, 3

as long as the authenticity of the provisional/confidential result

declared by the Universities is not in doubt, which in the present

case has been confirmed by the Universities on the request made by

the appellant/commission, the view taken by the High Court is

perfectly justified. It cannot be said that the respondents were

not qualified as on the cut off date, which was 12.10.2015, as the

provisional/confidential result had been declared by the respective

Universities in favour of the candidates prior to the said date and

the applications were filed by the respondents well within time,

along with such provisional/confidential result. As such, to this

extent, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in

these appeals.

Mr. Maninder Singh has then pointed out that the High Court

has gone further in directing/advising the appellant/Commission to

suitably amend its Rules to the extent that the date of eligibility

should be as on the date of screening or interview. The relevant

portion of the judgment of the High Court which offends the

appellant/Commission, is extracted below:

“…………..For that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission could conveniently amend the Rules and/or the condition to ensure that the date of eligibility is to be seen as on the date of Screening or the interview. Some of the Institutions have already done the same.

Therefore, we direct the Haryana Staff Selection Commission as well as State of Haryana that, for future, consider the recommendations of this Court that the eligibility of educational qualification should be considered at the time of Screening or interview so that the candidates whose results are declared late, do not suffer and lose the chance to compete for the said post 4

and possible selection.”

In our view, such directions, as have been issued by the High

Court, 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 to have directed as aforesaid. We, thus, quash the

aforesaid directions as issued in the portion of the judgment as

quoted above.

Subject 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,

directed that 90 posts be kept vacant by the Haryana Staff

Selection Commission/appellant i.e., 74 posts for the private

respondents herein and remaining 16 posts for the intervenors who

had till then filed intervention applications, we direct that the

said 90 posts be offered to the 74 private respondents and 16

intervenors (who have filed the intervention application prior to

the passing of the order dated 27.11.2018) within four weeks from

today, and they shall be given appointment on due verification,

without any delay.

It is further provided that the aforesaid 90 candidates shall

be placed just below the candidates who have already joined and the

seniority of the 90 candidates shall be on the basis of the inter

se merit among them. The respondents shall not be entitled to any

salary for the period they have not worked, and they would only be

entitled for their due seniority with increment, if any, as their

appointment shall be deemed to be notionally from the date of 5

appointment of other candidates who were earlier selected and

appointed in response to the advertisement dated 28.06.2015.

......................J. [VINEET SARAN]

......................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 01, 2021.

6

ITEM NO.11 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25184- 25214/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 362/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 405/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 406/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 407/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 408/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 409/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 412/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 413/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 414/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 415/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 416/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 417/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 418/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 420/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 421/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 425/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 427/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 434/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 435/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 436/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 437/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 439/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 442/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 443/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 470/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 517/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 571/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 572/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 591/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 613/2018 10-08-2018 in LPA No. 968/2018 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PRIYANKA & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)

([TO BE LISTED ALONGWITH RECORD OF SLP(C)-4542/2021] IA No. 185217/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 117796/2020 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 117798/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT IA No. 133071/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 20032/2019 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 160880/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 157761/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 146521/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 51197/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 185215/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 168814/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 47883/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 01-09-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN 7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.

Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Garima Bajaj, AOR Ms. Harshita Verma, Adv.

Mr. Agnish Aditya, Adv.

Mr. Nikhil Bamal, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Mangla, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, Adv. Dr. Sunil Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv.

Mr. Neelam Singh, Adv.

Mr. Sandiv Kalia, Adv.

Mr. Satbir Singh Pillania, Adv. Ms. Reena Rao, Adv.

Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

All pending intervention applications stand disposed of.

The Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PRADEEP KUMAR) (ASHWANI THAKUR) (COURT MASTER (SH) (BRANCH OFFICER) AR-CUM-PS (Signed order is placed on the file)