Punjab and Haryana High Court Directs Haryana Staff Selection Commission To Revise Merit List Of Constables, Sub-Inspectors Selected In 2019
While disposing of a batch of 52 petitions challenging the merit list prepared by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for the appointment of policemen to various posts in Indian Reserve Battalion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Commission to revise the merit list of those candidates whose claim for benefit in the ‘orphan category’ was wrongly denied.The HSSC had...
While disposing of a batch of 52 petitions challenging the merit list prepared by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for the appointment of policemen to various posts in Indian Reserve Battalion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Commission to revise the merit list of those candidates whose claim for benefit in the ‘orphan category’ was wrongly denied.
The HSSC had issued an advertisement in 2018 initiating the recruitment process to fill vacant posts of Constables and Sub-Inspectors. The petitioners in this case had applied after the advertisement.
According to the advertisement, candidates who were orphans or widows, could claim 5 additional marks under the Miscellaneous Category (10% weightage). Specifically, the prerequisite was that if the applicant was an orphan and the first or second child of a deceased parent who had passed away before the age of 42, or if the applicant was an orphan and their father had passed away before the applicant turned 15.
Upon scrutinizing their result, the petitioners found out that marks under the 'orphan category' had either been wrongly awarded or not awarded at all. The petitioners contended that they were denied the opportunity of being selected solely on account of this discrepancy which led to the filing of the present writ petitions.
During the proceedings, the question that arose for the court’s consideration was whether the definition of "orphan" included candidates whose father had passed away while their mother was still alive.
Senior Advocate B. S. Rana, representing the petitioners, emphasized that despite being eligible orphans, the petitioners were denied the additional 5 marks they deserved. He pointed out that certain candidates, whose mothers were alive, were denied the 5 marks, while others in similar circumstances were awarded those marks.
It was further argued that as per the advertisement, the only requirement for candidates was to upload the death certificate of their father, which would indicate whether the father's age was below or above 42 at the time of his death.
The Commission admitted there has been an error in giving marks to the candidates who are not entitled to be given marks beyond the criteria as mentioned in the advertisement.
The bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur said instead of nullifying the entire selection process, only the process of re-examining and scrutinizing the documents submitted by candidates claiming the benefit of additional 5 marks as orphans should be conducted again, as there is no allegation of any corrupt motive or malpractice.
“The mistake was committed at the stage of scrutiny of documents, so the exercise of revising the merit list was re-started from that stage. The respondent-Commission is hereby directed to revise the result of all such candidates by strictly adhering to the criteria as specified in the advertisement regarding allocation of 5 additional marks to candidates claiming under the orphan category,” the court added.
Since the term "orphan" was not defined in the advertisement and had various interpretations, the court directed that the same interpretation used for group-D posts in advertisement No. 4/2018 should be applied to this selection process.
The Commission was ordered to re-scrutinize the documents of all candidates who applied for any of the posts under the advertisement and claimed 5 additional marks as orphans.
"Admittedly, the selected candidates have not contributed to the preparation of the erroneous merit list and in fact, no fault of fraud can be attributed to such selected candidates. It is the fault of the Commission that certain candidates were given marks, who were not entitled to the same and, therefore, they came to be appointed," said the court.
The court said that in case it is found that on re-casting of the merit list, certain selected candidates will have to make way for those who have a higher merit, at that juncture, the State may take a decision as to whether such candidates having lesser merit and have already been appointed and working as such for the past three years, ought to be relieved.
"In case, the writ petitioners figure in the revised merit list, their appointment shall relate back to the date when their batch-mates were appointed with continuity in service to them for the purpose of seniority but without any back wages or other incidental benefits," said the court.
The court also directed the HSSC to conclude the exercise of scrutiny of documents within a period of four months from the date of judgment.
"After re-casting of the revised merit list, the State Government to consider retaining the services of such candidates already serving, though lower in merit, by adjusting them against any vacancies or future vacancies that are to arise. In case they are to be relieved to make way for candidates with higher merit, they will be issued appropriate show cause notice within a period of six weeks thereafter. Due intimation be sent at their last known address as mentioned. The show cause notice as proposed to be served upon the candidates having lesser merit, would also mention that the reply, if any, would be filed within a period of two weeks, while further mentioning that no opportunity would be given to them to prolong the matter," said the court.
Case Title: SOMBIR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 97