Civil Writ Petition No. 65 OF 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 65 OF 2011 Date of decision:12th January, 2011 Sneh Lata .......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. M.K.Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for the Haryana Public Service Commission(HPSC). 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Mahesh Grover, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a grievance that the Respondent Commission be directed to issue Roll No. to the petitioner for holding the written test for the post of Lecturer in Hindi(School Cadre), (Group B) as a special case. The case of the petitioner is that she is a post graduate in Hindi with 56.6% marks in the year 2004 and that she has also passed M.Phil in Hindi in the year 2009. She is qualified to be considered for the post of lecturer in Hindi. Respondent Commission had advertised various posts of lecturers including the post of lecturer in Hindi vide Advertisement Nos. 3 and 4, both of which were of the same date i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 65 OF 2011 2 17.07.2009. Advertisement No. 3 pertained to all categories including Scheduled Castes and Advertisement No. 4 pertained to the back log of vacancies belonging to Scheduled Castes of Haryana. That while applying for the post of lecturer, inadvertently the petitioner mentioned her claim qua both the advertisements i.e. Advertisement nos. 3 and 4. The Respondent-Commission after noticing the mistake sent out a communication to the petitioner on 13.11.2010 asking her to indicate as to against which advertisement she would like to be considered and that she can opt only against one of the advertisement. The petitioner has responded to the communication on 6.12.2010. It is a case of the petitioner that no roll number was ever issued to her either regarding advertisement Nos. 3 or 4. That after writing to the Respondent-Commission indicating her preference to take examination against advertisement No. 3, she approached the Respondent Commission personally to permit her to take the examination which was conducted on 26.12.2010. The examination for advertisement no. 4 was conducted on 19.12.2010. It is further the case of the petitioner that she met the concerned officials of the Respondent Commission and as per the communication which she has submitted on 6.12.2010, no roll number was issued to her and finally, it transpired that the Respondent Commission had conducted the examination and the petitioner was never issued the roll number and neither was she permitted to take the examination. Civil Writ Petition No. 65 OF 2011 3 It is thus, the case of the petitioner that it has seriously prejudiced her as she has been deprived from taking part in the selection process because of the negligence of the Respondent Commission. On 4.01.2011, after noticing the grievance of the petitioner, notice of motion was issued to the respondent Commission and Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate who was present in Court accepted notice on behalf of the Haryana Public Service Commission and prayed for time to make submissions. After getting necessary instructions, today when the matter was called for hearing, he points out that the petitioner was required to give her option by 23.11.2010 within a period of 10 days but the option was submitted vide letter dated 6.12.2010, beyond the date which was stipulated in the communication dated 13.11.2010. It is thus, the case of the respondent Commission that the petitioner has not been permitted to take the examination because of the lapse on her part and the roll number was sent to her qua advertisement no. 4 under postal certificate on 7.12.2010 for an examination which was to be conducted on 19.12.2010. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have read the contents of the paper book. It is the conceded fact of the parties that on 13.11.2010, the petitioner was required to give her option with regard to one of the advertisement pursuant to which selection was to be made. It is also a conceded fact that the petitioner on 6.12.2010 had responded even though same was not within the stipulated time Civil Writ Petition No. 65 OF 2011 4 of 10 days as contemplated by the communication dated 13.11.2010. The Court is of the opinion that though the petitioner failed to adhere to the stipulation of response within a period of 10 days yet she had responded on 6.12.2010 before the examination and this should have been sufficient ground for the respondent to allow her to take examination which was scheduled for a date subsequent to the date when she communicated to the respondents, her preference to take the examination qua advertisement no. 3. It is not the case of the respondent Commission that such option was not exercised by the petitioner but the sole objection is that the option was exercised after the period of 10 days which was the requirement of the communication dated 13.11.2010. The procedure that the respondent adopted should not have been done, as such an attitude towards the candidates affects their careers and the Haryana Public Service Commission who is empowered and required to conduct such selection process in such eventualities should treat the cases of aspirants with sensitivity that it deserves. Respondent No. 3 is directed to conduct a special examination for the petitioner and consider her for the selection on date to be fixed by the respondent commission and communicated to her in accordance with their convenience. This writ petition stands allowed. [MAHESH GROVER] JUDGE 12th January, 2011 Shivani Kaushik