IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 08, 2009 CWP No. 212 of 2009 Sunita Devi ......Petitioner Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission ... Respondent. CWP No. 220 of 2009 Parita Yadav .....Petitioner Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission ... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Vipin Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.212 of 2009 and 220 of 2009. In these writ petitions the petitioners have claimed that even though the last date for submitting application form was 21.8.2006 and they had not obtained the requisite academic qualifications till then yet since this Court has allowed CWP No.16214 of 2008 relating to this very selection and has held that the last date for the petitioners therein would be 10.12.2008, therefore, even in this case the same principle should apply. It CWP No. 212 of 2009 -2- may be noticed that the aforesaid writ petition No. 16214 of 2008 was decided on the basis of Navneet Kaur V State of Punjab and others reported s 2008 (4) SCT 192 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “It is evident that by the corrigendum the applications for 700 posts and 600 posts of Mathematics Master/Mistress were invited and the date was extended to 31.8.2006. Once the last date for submission of applications has been extended to 31.8.2006 it follows that the eligibility as per Clause 10 would automatically be considered as on 31.8.2006. The detailed marks card of the petitioner in respect o her B.Ed. Examination is dated 20.8.2006 (Annexure P-1) and accordingly she has to be considered as eligible. In my opinion this judgment would not apply to the case of the petitioners in the present petition. As far as the petitioners in the present case are concerned, it cannot be said that the last date for applying had been extended. It cannot be said that any person who has not applied at all would be eligible to apply under the corrigendum. Thus the petitioners in these petitions constitute different class than the petitioner in the aforementioned CWP No. 16214 of 2008. Those petitioners were within the eligible age group as per rules but were sought to be ousted on the basis of age requirement in the Advertisement which was not as per the rules and that is why a corrigendum was issued extending the last date for such persons. The present petitioners were eligible as per the age criteria, both in terms of the Advertisement and the Rules and, therefore, were required to have the necessary qualifications according to the last date originally prescribed. It CWP No. 212 of 2009 -3- cannot be lost sight of that the stipulations of the employer cannot be interfered with by Courts merely for the asking and it is only in exceptional circumstances which could justify tinkering with the decision of the employer. In this view of the matter I hold that the petitioners in both the aforersaid petitions cannot be held to be eligible and consequently dismiss these petitions. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 08, 2009 sunita