C.W.P No. 1283 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1283 of 2009 Date of decision : February 16, 2009 Sushil Kumar, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G Haryana for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) 405 posts of Hindi Teachers were advertised on 20.7.2006. The petitioner applied for the same and was called for interview. However, he was not interviewed on the ground that he had not deposited necessary interview fee. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had infact deposited necessary fee and that is why interview letter was issued to him and that due to passage of almost three years, the petitioner is no more in a position to produce the original receipt. He relies upon a Division C.W.P No. 1283 of 2009 ::2:: Bench decision of this Court dated 5.7.2005, rendered in CWP No.2293 of 2005, Karnail Singh vs The State of Haryana and others, wherein it was held as follows :- “ The petitioner applied for selection to the post of constable in the IRB as being a member of the backward class. He appeared for the physical test on 7.7.2004 and was declared successful. He also appeared in the interview on 28.9.2004. The petitioner was thereafter medically examined and declared to be fit for appointment. It appears that though persons junior to him in merit and who had been medically examined along with him were issued appointment letter, but no such letter was issued to him. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed. The stand taken by the respondents in the preliminary objection No.1 should be truly embarrassing to the respondents. We reproduce the above said para as under :- `The petitioner had applied for the post of constable in India Reserve Battalion in the BC- ESM category against the advertised 740 post of constables. The application forms are minutely checked at the time of scrutiny but the treasury challan of the petitioner through which the prescribed fee amounting to Rs.125/- was to be deposited was over sighted inadvertently at the C.W.P No. 1283 of 2009 ::3:: time of the checking of the application form of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has also not disclosed the particulars of the treasury challan form in the column No.15 of the application form. If the required fee was deposited by the petitioner then he might have mentioned the detail of treasury challan in the column No.15 of the application form. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the recruitment process inadvertently and the mistake was detected after the selection of the petitioner and at the time of allotting the constabulary number to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the appointment as constable in spite of his selection due to lack of deposit the prescribed fee as required by law.' We are unable to comprehend as to how in the background of the facts given above, the petitioner could have been denied appointment on account of the fact that the prescribed fee of Rs.125/- for the medical examination had not been deposited by him. We are of the opinion that the respondents could have accepted the amount even at the stage of the medical examination or even thereafter. We accordingly direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner forthwith and to determine his seniority from the date of the other candidates who were selected and appointed with him. C.W.P No. 1283 of 2009 ::4:: The petition is accordingly allowed. Dasti.” Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the limited prayer being made by the petitioner in the present case is that he should be interviewed and, if necessary, fresh interview fee be charged from him. I am of the opinion that in view of the interview letter having been sent to the petitioner (inadvertently as claimed by the respondents), the petitioner's right for consideration cannot be defeated, in view of the judgment quoted above. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to interview the petitioner after accepting a fresh deposit of interview fee, if so required. After the interview, the result of the petitioner would be declared and if he makes the cut, he would be considered for appointment. Let the needful be done within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition is disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 16, 2009. JUDGE `kk'