IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 16214 of 2008 Date of decision : January 07, 2009 Sunita and another ... Petitioners. Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another ... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Rajbir Shehrawat, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 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 This petition was filed for quashing the advertisement for filling up the post of Art and Craft Teachers on the ground that it was not in conformity with the Rules since in the advertisement the minimum age mentioned was 18 years as on 21.8.2006 while in the rules the same was 17 years. During the pendency of the petition the respondents issued a corrigendum correcting the age and permitting such persons who had consequently been rendered eligible to apply by 10.12.2008. The second point of discord between the parties is that the petitioners acquired the essential qualification by diploma dated 12.3.2007. As per the respondents even if the petitioners had been rendered eligible in terms of age yet they C.W.P No. 16214 of 2008 -2- could not be held eligible since they did not have the requisite qualifications on the prescribed date viz. 21.8.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argues that as far as the petitioners are concerned, for them the cut off date would be 10.12.2008 and thus, they would have to be considered eligible. Counsel has cited the case of Navneet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others reported as 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 decision of a Division Bench is binding on me and since the last date for application was extended for persons like the petitioners the cut off date for them would be the subsequent date viz. 10.12.2008. In this view of the matter I hold that the petitioners are eligible to be considered for appointment and consequently allow the petition. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 07, 2009 sunita IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 08, 2009 CWP No. 212 of 2009 Sunit Devi ......Petitioner Versusa 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 N.16214 of 2008 relating to this very selection and has held that the last date for the petitioners therein shall be 10.12.2008, therefore, even in this case the same principle should apply. It may be noticed that the aforesaid writ petition No. 16214 of 2008 was decided on CWP No. 212 of 2009 -2- 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. 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 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 212 of 2009 Date of decision : January 08, 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. For orders see CWP No. 212 of 2009 ( Sunita Devi v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission). (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 08, 2009 sunita