IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 7083 of 1989 Date of Decision: February 26, 2009 Harjinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to give direct appointment to the petitioner to the post of Ayurvedir Vaidya as per the instructions of the State Government in respect of handicapped persons. 2. It has been claimed that the petitioner is a physically C.W.P. No. 7083 of 1989 handicapped person and suffering from the Post Traumatic deformity, shortening and residual weakness of left lower limb. On 9.7.1982, the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, has issued a certificate declaring the petitioner physically handicapped person (P-1). 3. On 17.12.1987, an advertisement was published in ‘The Tribune’, inviting applications from eligible persons for 40 temporary posts of Vaidyas in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1300 plus usual allowances. Persons having diploma or degree in Ayurveda of any recognized University or Board of Indian Systems of medicine established by law in India or any teaching institution recognized by the Government of Punjab, were eligible to apply. The petitioner also applied in response to the advertisement. When interview card was not received by him, he addressed a communication dated 16.10.1988 to the Director Employment, Punjab, Chandigarh. On 2.11.1988, it was informed to the petitioner that his application was not received within the stipulated time. It was further intimated that as per instructions issued vide letter No. 18/14/86-6P.P (1703) 5964, dated 24.4.1986, the department could make direct appointment of handicapped persons and there was no necessity of moving application against such vacancy (P-2). 4. The petitioner has also claimed that on earlier occasion he was called for interview on 15.12.1986 at 10.00 a.m. in the office of Director, Ayurveda, Punjab, vide letter dated 25.11.1986 alongwith original certificates of academic qualifications and experience. In the said letter it was also mentioned that in case he had already appeared in the interview held on 22.11.1986, 24.11.1986 and 25.11.1986, he 2 C.W.P. No. 7083 of 1989 need not to appear on 15.12.1986. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was interviewed for the post of Ayurvedic Vaidya on 25.11.1986. 5. On 24.12.1988 (P-5), the petitioner sent an application to the Head of Ayurvedic Department, Chandigarh for direct recruitment as per Government instructions dated 24.4.1986. On 1.1.1989, the petitioner also represented to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur (P-6) who forwarded the same to the District Employment Officer, Gurdaspur for taking a decision, vide his letter dated 24.1.1989 (P-7). 6. The petitioner has also claimed that as a result of interviews held in the year 1986, the Directorate of Auyrveda, Punjab, filled up 40 posts of Vaidya, however, his result was not declared. However, 64 posts of Vaidya were lying vacant in the department out of which two posts belongs to handicapped candidates being 3% reserved vacancies. The petitioner has, thus, claimed that he could be appointed against one of the vacancies being handicapped person as per the instructions dated 24.4.1986 without holding any interview. 7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents the stand taken is that the application of the petitioner for the post of Vaidya was received on 8.1.1988 after the expiry of period of submission of applications i.e. 28.12.1987 as specified in the advertisement. It has further been asserted that the benefit of instructions dated 24.4.1986 and subsequent instructions dated 22.8.1989 could not have been granted to the petitioner because as per the said instructions a physically handicapped person seeking employment on priority list, should have 40% permanent partial disability of either of the upper or lower extremity deformities, 3 C.W.P. No. 7083 of 1989 whereas in the disability certificate furnished by the petitioner, there is no mention of percentage of disability. With regard to interviews held in November/December 1986, it has been pointed out that in that selection process one Shri Rakesh Kumar was recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee for the post of Vaidya against the vacancy earmarked for handicapped person. He secured 821 marks out of 1450 in the B.A.M.S. degree course whereas the petitioner had secured only 332 out of 700 marks in the Ayurvedacharya. On the second occasion, the application of the petitioner was received late, therefore, he could not be called for interview. 8. No one has put in appearance in support of the petition. 9. Having heard learned State counsel and perusing the paper book with her able assistance, I find that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is well settled that if the application is not received by the date specified in the advertisement then such a candidate would lose the chance of consideration of his application. For the aforementioned view I seek support from the judgments rendered in the cases of Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168 (Page 175); Ashok Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54; and M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429. In the case of Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262, the question of determination of eligibility on a cut off date came up for consideration and while accepting the view expressed by this Court, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed as under:- 4 C.W.P. No. 7083 of 1989 “……the High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. ……” 10. The aforementioned principles lead to an irresistible conclusion that in the present case, the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement is 28.12.1987. It was by the cut off date that a candidate was required to submit his application. It has come on record that the application of the petitioner in response to the advertisement dated 17.12.1987 was received on 8.1.1988 much after the last date of submission of applications. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim consideration of his candidature in response to the advertisement. 11. The second plea raised by the petitioner regarding grant of benefit of Government instructions would also not be available to him because there is no mention of percentage of disability of the 5 C.W.P. No. 7083 of 1989 petitioner in the physically handicap certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur, dated 9.7.1982 (P-1) on which reliance has been placed by him, whereas as per the instructions dated 24.4.1986 and 22.8.1989, a physically challenged person should have 40% permanent partial disability of either of the upper or lower extremity deformities to claim employment on priority list, which the petitioner do not possess. 12. The third plea raised by the petitioner is that the result of his interview, held on 25.11.1986 has not been declared. It has already been noticed above that a more meritorious person, namely, Shri Rakesh Kumar was recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee for the post of Vaidya against the vacancy earmarked for the handicapped person. 13. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) February 26, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 6