Civil Writ Petition No. 15608 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15608 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.07.2011 Pooja ...Petitioner Versus Pandit B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner is holding Bachelor degree of Nursing from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes category and is permanent resident of State of Haryana. In this regard, she has domicile certificate to show, which is issued by the competent authority. In the year 2008, the petitioner applied for the post of Staff Nurse in terms of the advertisement then issued. The petitioner received call letter for interview to be held on 12.06.2009. When the petitioner appeared with all the documents, she came to know that she was disqualified due to non-submission of proper Haryana domicile certificate. As per the advertisement, post Civil Writ Petition No. 15608 of 2009 meant for Scheduled Caste was reserved for Haryana domicile. The respondents, thereafter, issued a selection list, selecting 42 candidates on the basis of marks obtained in the interview. The petitioner claims that she would have been placed at serial No. 4 of the merit list and has, accordingly, filed this writ petition for challenging the action of the respondents in not considering and ignoring her in the list of selected candidates. The respondents have filed reply making some preliminary submissions. It is stated that the petitioner had applied for one post out of 46 posts of Scheduled Castes category without attaching Haryana Domicile Certificate with her application. It is stated that she did not produce the domicile certificate at the time of interview inspite of being asked to do so and her candidature was not considered for selection by the Selection Committee. This fact is put to serious dispute by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel refers to Annexure P-8 to say that the petitioner was required to produce testimonials at the time of interview and eligibility for the post was to be determined upto the last date of receipt of application. i.e. 19.03.2009. Since the issue was mainly to be determined on the basis of this factual controversy, this court on 16.07.2010 noticed as under:- “ The case projected by the petitioner is that she had appeared for the interview alongwith the requisite documents including the domicile certificate but her candidature was rejected on the ground that she never submitted the proper Haryana domicile certificate and Civil Writ Petition No. 15608 of 2009 accordingly she was held not eligible. From this, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that domicile certificate indeed was submitted but it was not considered. However, the stand in the reply is that the petitioner did not submit any domicile certificate. From which, the counsel for the petitioner would urge that this amounts taking contradictory stand. Before going into this aspect, I deem it appropriate to direct the State to file an affidavit of concerned Officer if any certificate of domicile was produced before him by the petitioner at the time of interview or not. The petitioner may also, if so, desire substantiate the plea that she has submitted the domicile certificate. Let the necessary pleadings be exchanged. Adjourned to 04.10.2010, for arguments.” Respondent was told to file an affidavit of the concerned Officer to state if the certificate of domicile had been produced before him by the petitioner at the time of interview or not. The necessary affidavit has, accordingly, been filed stating that the petitioner had not produced her Haryana Domicile Certificate. It was then noticed that the petitioner had not placed on record any additional evidence in support of her claim that she had submitted her domicile certificate at the time of interview. The Court had also noticed that it may not be appropriate to adjudicate this disputed question of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The case was adjourned subsequently with the direction to the State counsel to produce the record. The record has been produced and placed before me. Civil Writ Petition No. 15608 of 2009 I have perused the application form submitted by the petitioner alongwith the documents annexed therewith. Copy of the domicile certificate had not been found annexed with the record. The fact that whether the petitioner had produced this certificate or not, thus, depends upon the version given by the petitioner and the person, who has given this affidavit. Prima facie, I do not see any reason for the person deposing before this Court to say something which is not a true state of affairs. There is no allegation of mala fide made against the respondents for which they would act in this manner to deny the claim of the petitioner, in case, she was eligible and had come to the interview with requisite documents. It would not be fair for this Court to go into and determine this factual controversy. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 26, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE