Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs Subhash Chand

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2024 INSC 112 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6395/2023

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SUBHASH CHAND & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Despite service, none appears for the second and the third

respondents.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the

learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent.

3. The appellant-Haryana Staff Selection Commission published an

advertisement on 28th June, 2015 inviting applications for the posts

of (PGT)-H.E.S.II (Group-B Services). The closing date for the

submission of online applications was 21 st September, 2015. The

last date for the deposit of fee by the candidates was 24 th

September, 2015. The advertisement itself specifies the posts

reserved for various categories, including SBC (5%) and EBPGC (5%).

The first respondent specifically applied under the SBC category

for the post of PGT in Political Science. It appears that on 29 th Signature Not Verified August, Digitally signed by 2018, the first respondent was informed that he was Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.02.15 09:51:45 IST qualified in the written test and, therefore, he was called for Reason:

1

scrutiny of documents. In the result declared on

17th September, 2018, the first respondent was shown in the General

category. The first respondent secured total 118 marks. The cut-

off in the General category was 129 marks and, therefore, the first

respondent was not selected.

4. It appears that the Government of Haryana issued

communications dated 21st February, 2018 and 1st June, 2018,

recording therein that in view of the order passed by the High

Court in CWP No.18514/2016, the Notification dated 27 th September,

2013, should not be given effect. The said Notification dated

27th September, 2013 was for providing a quota to the candidates

belonging to the SBC category.

5. On 5th June, 2017, a certificate was issued to the first

respondent recording that he belongs to the EBPGC category. On 29 th

August, 2018, the first respondent filed a representation to

consider the change of his category to the EBPGC category. Perhaps,

this representation was made considering the stand that the quota

notified for SBC category was merged into the General category. The

above representation was followed by one more representation on 1 st

October, 2018.

6. As the representation was not considered, on 3 rd October, 2018,

the first respondent filed a writ petition being CWP No.25782/2018

(O&M) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the

High Court. While issuing notice on the said writ petition, on 8 th

October, 2018, one post was ordered to be kept reserved. The

2 learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10th December,

2018, referred to the interim order dated 8 th October, 2018 and

observed that the State of Haryana did not dispute the rest of the

conditions of eligibility, except the category. A direction was

issued by the High Court to grant appointment to the first

respondent in General Caste (EBPGC) category. A Letters Patent

Appeal being LPA No.1199/2019 was preferred by the appellant before

the Division Bench of the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal

was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24th March, 2023.

7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant is that the first respondent never applied under the

quota reserved for the EBPGC category before the cut-off date and,

in fact, he was granted the certificate long after the cut-off

date. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the directions

issued by the High Court on 27th June, 2015 and 26th May, 2016, the

State Government was restrained from acting upon the Notifications

dated 28th February, 2013 and 24th January, 2013. Thus, the State

Government was prevented from giving effect to the reservation for

the SBC category quota. Therefore, the applications of those

candidates who had applied under the SBC category quota were

ordered to be considered against the General category. The learned

counsel further submitted that the first respondent did not score

enough marks to get appointment in the General category and,

therefore, he was not selected. The learned counsel also submitted

that the appellant has acted in terms of the directions issued by

the High Court.

3

8. We have also heard the learned senior counsel appearing for

the first respondent.

9. The first order of the High Court directing the State

Government not to give any employment in the Government service and

admission in the educational institutions against the SBC category

was passed on 27th July, 2015 in CWP No.9132/2015 (Ved Prakash and

another vs. State of Haryana and others). A perusal of the said

order (Annexure R/5 to the counter affidavit) shows that the State

Government was represented by the learned Advocate General when the

said order was passed. It is pertinent to note that the

advertisement subject matter of controversy was issued on

28th June, 2015 and the last date for submitting online applications

was 21st September, 2015. Obviously, it was the duty of the State

Government to instruct the appellant to modify the advertisement

and postpone the last date of submission of the online

applications. Having full knowledge of the order dated 27th July,

2015 of the High Court, the State Government and the appellant took

no steps, therefore, the candidates like the first respondent

applied under the SBC category quota.

10. Even assuming that the State Government and the appellant

overlooked the order dated 27th July, 2015 of the High Court, even

after noticing the said order, the State Government could have

directed the appellant to cancel the process and issue a fresh

advertisement. We may note here that though the cut-off date for

submitting the online applications was 21st September, 2015, the

4 result of the written test was declared nearly three years

thereafter on 29th August, 2018. It is because of the default on

the part of the State Government, the first respondent was

prevented from making an application in the EBPGC category. These

aspects have been considered by the Division Bench of the High

Court in the impugned judgment. In fact, in the impugned judgment,

it is noted that the District Administration started receiving the

applications for issuance of EBPGC certificates only when the

instructions were issued on 7th June, 2017 by the Chief Secretary of

the Government of Haryana. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded

by the Division Bench is that the first respondent cannot be blamed

for claiming reservation under the SBC category quota and for not

claiming reservation under the EBPGC category quota. It is in the

light of these peculiar facts that the Division Bench has confirmed

the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As noted earlier, the

learned Single Judge has directed the appointment of the first

respondent to be made against one post reserved under the interim

order. At this stage, we may note here that the contention of the

learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent is that

about 11 seats belonging to the EBPGC category quota earmarked

under the same advertisement are still vacant.

11. Considering the fact that the first respondent was placed in a

very peculiar position due to the default on the part of the State

Government, the learned Single Judge has passed an order for

accommodating the first respondent. The order is just and

equitable.

5

12. In view of the peculiar facts which we have discussed above,

we are of the view that no interference with the impugned judgments

is called for. While we say so, we direct that the appointment

order be issued to the first respondent in terms of the impugned

judgment dated 10th December, 2018 of the learned Single Judge

within a period of one month from the date on which a copy of this

judgment is uploaded on the website of this Court. We clarify that

the first respondent shall not be entitled to back wages. However,

the period from 10th December, 2018 till the date on which the

appointment order is issued, shall be taken into consideration for

grant of further promotions, if any, and for retiral benefits.

13. Subject to the above directions, the Appeal is dismissed.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 31, 2024.

6