"Orthodox View On Law": P&H HC Imposes ₹1.5 Lakh Cost On Haryana PSC For Rejecting Judiciary Candidate's SC Certificates For Not Being In Format

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1.50 lakh on the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for wrongly rejecting a Haryana civil judge's candidature as a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, "A candidate cannot be afforded latitude for omission(s) on his part as the selecting/examining agency has to proceed on the basis of application and documents submitted by the candidate. In case an error has occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, namely, an incorrect/technically defective certificate(s), received by the candidate from the competent authority, having been presented by the candidate, in the back drop of such a candidate actually possessing the requisite qualification, some latitude may be extendable to such a candidate.”

The Court further said that it is indubitable that the candidate should show good cause, with certitude, for the grant of such a latitude. “Also, corrective or remedial steps ought to be undertaken at the end of the concerned candidate, at the earliest feasible date, since the time lapse may,”

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel highlighted, that a candidate seeking latitude for submission of a defective certificate along with the application form is required to show tangible cause or accentuating circumstances, at the earliest opportunity lest the timeline itself may non-suit such a candidate.

The Court was hearing a plea of Divya Kalia, whose candidature for the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination 2023-2024 was rejected for not submitting the SC certificate in proper format and domicile certificate along with that. She also sought her appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haryana.

Kalia had applied as a SC candidate and submitted her SC certificate dated July 11, 2016 within the stipulated time. After clearing both the preliminary and main written exams and was scheduled for an interview on September 15, 2024.

Days before her interview she informed the HPSC that her SC certificate and domicile certificate had already been submitted, but the registration number was missing and date was mentioned at the bottom. However, the same was not considered.

Perusing the certificate, the Court noted that “the registration number as also date is not mentioned on the top left side thereof but on the bottom left side of the same, the date is mentioned as 11.07.2016. Hence, the objection raised by HPSC regarding non-mentioning of date on the top left side of the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 is sans logic.”

The bench opined that, “it is a trivial error and law does not concern itself with trifles as per salutary legal principle enshrined in the maxim De Minimus Non Curat Lex.”

“Further, by no stretch of imagination, the non-mentioning of registration number on the top left side of the SC Certificate dated 11.07.2016 can be attributed to the petitioner as it was for the concerned competent authority, (Tehsildar of Gurugram in the present case), to mention the registration number,” it added.

The Court also pointed out that the requisite domicile certificate was, in fact, uploaded by the petitioner in terms of the advertisement in question. 

“The refuge, sought to be taken by HPSC, under clauses 28, 30 & 26is actually subterfuge which calls for rejection for justice must not be shackled by the chains of formality,” the bench added.

The Court observed that “the present case is an unsoothing illustration of, how litigations are pursued on behalf of the State (HPSC, to be more precise, in the case in hand), in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion. The proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance & judicial propriety. Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system."

In the light of the above, the Court set aside the impugned order whereby her candidature was rejected and directed the HPSC to take, forthwith, requisite consequential steps accordingly.

“HPSC is directed to pay to the petitioner costs of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from today. Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- is further saddled upon HPSC to be deposited in favour of Poor Patient's Welfare Fund PGIMER, Chandigarh within two weeks from today for having wasted precious time of this Court which could have been utilized for hearing & deciding more pressing matters,” it added.

While disposing of the plea, the Court directed the HPSC to file a compliance- affidavit, in terms of the directions made, within four weeks, failing which invite punitive consequences will follow.

 Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shreya B. Sarin, Advocate andMr. Himanshu Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Chhatwal, Advocate for

Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2-High Court.

Mr. Balvinder Singh Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.3-HPSC.

Title:  Divya Kalia v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order