CWP No.7375 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.04.2010 Megha Kalra ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. G.I. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. PERMOD KOHLI, J. The petitioner is a student of four years' degree Course of Engineering (Civil). The examination for the last semester was to start from 27.04.2010. In the month of January, 2010, the Haryana Public Service Commission, issued advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil). The closing date for the applications was 22.01.2010. The essential qualification for the post in question is as follows:- “5.Essential Qualification: (I) Degree of a recognised university or one of the other equivalent qualifications in Civil Engineering specified in Appendix “B” to the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-II PWD (Public Health) Rules, 1966. Provided that Degree obtained through correspondence or distance education mode from Universities/Deemed Universities/Technical institutions is valid qualification for initial recruitment only if CWP No.7375 of 2010 2 such Degree programme of Technical education conducted through distance education mode has been approved by the joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC. (III) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric.” The petitioner submitted her application within the time prescribed in the advertisement. However, the same has been rejected vide letter dated 25.02.2010 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification i.e. Degree in Civil Engineering on or before closing date of 22.02.2010. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is to appear in final examination of the Civil Engineering and should be declared as eligible to apply as similar facility is granted by the Union Public Service Commission to the candidates, who have appeared in the final examination. As a matter of fact, the prayer made in the writ petition is to consider the application of the petitioner keeping in view the criteria adopted by the Union Public Service Commission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The Haryana Public Service Commission in its advertisement has clearly indicated the essential qualification and the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer is a degree in Civil Engineering. The last date for making application was 22.01.2010, which means a candidate should possess the essential qualification as on the last date of making the application. This controversy is no more res integra and CWP No.7375 of 2010 3 is squarely covered by a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chander Shekhar and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 18. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also considering the question of eligibility of candidates on the last date of application. The Court framed following specific issue :- “ (1) Whether the view taken by the majority (Hon' Dr. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) that it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy?” While answering the aforesaid question, Hon'ble Court made following observations:- “6. The review petitions came up for final hearing on 3.3.1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1.9.1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr T.K.Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called CWP No.7375 of 2010 4 for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. CWP No.7375 of 2010 5 University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is. with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and in error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M.Sahai J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner is ineligible and her candidature has rightly been rejected. The petitioner cannot seek the benefit of the norms laid down by the Union Public Service Commission. The Haryana Public Service Commission is a distinct constitutional authority and is entitled to lay down its own norms. Under the norms, the eligibility is to be seen on the last date of making the applications. No exception can be taken to it. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 28.04.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES