IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.156 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 28, 2009 Rashpal Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing selection of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as Sewing Teachers Female (S.C. Ex-servicemen Dependents category), made vide Annexure P-8 dated 27.12.2006. On behalf of the petitioner, it has CWP No.156 of 2008 [2] been pleaded that an advertisement was published in newspaper on 10.12.2006 inviting applications for appointment of 65 Sewing Teachers. The last date for submission of the applications was 19.12.2006. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes Ex-servicemen Dependents (Mazhbi/Balmiki) category and was in possession of the required qualification. The application form was submitted. A public notice (Annexure P-6) was issued on 22.12.2006 prescribing the cut off marks for each category. The candidates were invited with the original documents/ certificates for scrutiny of the same. It has been pleaded in Para 7 of the petition that the form number of the petitioner also figured in the said notice. The petitioner appeared in the office of respondent No.3 on 23.12.2006. Original certificates were produced before the authorities. An affidavit regarding Ex-servicemen Dependent's certificate was submitted in which it was stated that the certificate would be produced on 26.12.2006, the intervening dates being holidays. It is the case of the petitioner that the result was declared on 27.12.2006, the CWP No.156 of 2008 [3] name of the petitioner did not figure and, hence, the present petition. The case set up on behalf of the official respondents is to the effect that the petitioner was required to submit Lineal Descendent Certificate on 21.12.2006 and 23.12.2006 which were the cut off dates. Certificate dated 26.12.2006 was however submitted by the petitioner after the date of interview. It has further been mentioned in the short reply filed by way of affidavit of Mr. G.K. Singh, PCS, Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, sworn on 15.1.2009 that the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered in view of the fact that she had not submitted the certificate by the scheduled dates. I have considered the issue. Vide Annexure P-6 issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, the candidates were specifically asked to bring Lineal Descendent Certificate in the prescribed proforma for the post applied for, issued by the concerned District Sainik Welfare Officer. The issuing date of the Certificate should be from the date of advertisement to the date of checking/ scrutiny of the document. It remains the admitted position CWP No.156 of 2008 [4] that the petitioner had not submitted the required document by the scheduled dates. In such circumstances, I find no infirmity in the action of the respondents in ignoring the claim of the petitioner for consideration. Every candidate is expected to submit the required documents by the date scheduled in the advertisement/ public notice. The candidature of a person cannot be considered if the documents are submitted later than the date/ stage fixed. In 2000(2) SCT 826, Bhupinder Pal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab, the following has been held in Para 13:- “13. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar & Anr., JT 1997(4) SC 99: 1997(2) SCT 208 (SC); A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors., 1990(4) SLR 235; The Distt. Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990(4) SLR 237; Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan & Ors., JT 1993(1) SC 220: 1993(2) SCT 279 (SC); Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India & Ors., 1993(2) SCC 77 (SC); and U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr. v. Alpana, JT 1994(1) SC 94: 1994(1) SCT 701 (SC), 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. However, there are certain special features of this case which need to be taken care of and justice done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.” Affidavit furnished by the CWP No.156 of 2008 [5] petitioner would not be a substitute to the Lineal Descendent Certificate, as required in the notice. Filing of affidavit would also not extend the time for submission of the certificate. It is further not in dispute that Lineal Descendent Certificate was mandatory requirement for consideration of candidature of the petitioner. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 28, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?