Civil Writ Petition No.9323 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 16, 2009 Sunita Rani ...Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. 46 posts of female supervisor for appointment in Women and Child Development Department, Haryana have been advertised on 7.6.2008. Matric as an educational qualification from a recognised board is one of the essential qualification prescribed for the post. The petitioner has applied for appointment to the said post. Subsequently, Civil Writ Petition No.9323 of 2009 : 2 : the respondent-Commission has published an advertisement on 19.5.2009 for short listing the candidates. It is proposed that minimum cut off for different categories regarding percentage of merits in the matriculation is prescribed. Cut off 66% for general category, 63% for scheduled caste, 63% for BC-A and 65% for BC-B category has been so prescribed. The petitioner has challenged this action of the respondents in providing a cut off marks. This, according to the petitioner, cannot be done as there was no condition made in this regard in the initial advertisement issued. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents are not justified in laying down the requirement of minimum percentage of marks as eligibility condition. In support, reference is made to Inderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1995 (2) RSJ 759. This was a case where admission to diploma course of Electrician was to be made. Minimum requirement as provided was that the candidate should have passed matriculation or its equivalent or 10th pass with Science, Physics and Chemistry. This Court observed that there was no stipulation that candidate should have passed the subjects of Physics and Chemistry with minimum 33% marks and in this background observed that the respondents were not justified in insisting upon the requirement of passing the subjects with minimum 33% marks as a condition for eligibility. These observations were made in the context of admission to education Institution. However, in the present case, by providing cut off, no eligibility is being changed and here one is concerned with the appointment to a post where comparative merit is going to be the criteria. Similarly, the reference is made to the observations made in the case of Civil Writ Petition No.9323 of 2009 : 3 : Dr.Miss.Arvind Khanna Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1) RSJ 648, to say that the eligibility conditions for recruitment are to be judged with reference to a date fixed in the Recruitment Rules and in absence of such date, last date fixed for receipt of applications and that subsequent amendment in qualifications could not have been applied to prejudice the petitioner. These observations are also not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here neither the qualification has been amended nor eligibility conditions changed. It is a case only where cut off percentage has been provided to short list the applicants. For this very reason, the observation made in Bhupinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2000(1) Apex Court Journal 638 that eligibility should be determined on the last date and that eligibility on the date of interview should be discontinued are not attracted to the facts of the present case. My attention has also been drawn to Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A.Baig (dead) by L.Rs., 2000 (1) RSJ 294. Here the requirement of 10 years experience of teaching and/or research was changed to provide 10 years teaching experience at the Post Graduate level after the last date of receipt of the application. Obviously, there was a change in the eligibility condition as such. In the present case, no condition of eligibility has been changed. As already noticed, only cut off percentage of the marks obtained in the matriculation has been provided. Mode of providing cut off is a validly recognised one and the same if done cannot be termed arbitrary or discriminatory. In fact, all examinations across the world always provide for some cut off Civil Writ Petition No.9323 of 2009 : 4 : marks, be it pass marks or different grades for the purpose of giving divisions. These cut off marks varies from one exam to another, depending upon the level of excellence/output expected from the candidate, who is to qualify in such examination. Thus, setting up of such cut off marks as eligibility condition cannot be termed as arbitrary, irrational or unconstitutional. I, therefore, see no infirmity in this regard which would call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 16, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE