IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 58 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.2.2011 Gurinder Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges order dated 20.9.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge coming to a conclusion that the petitioner-appellants were not eligible and acquired requisite qualification on the cut off date prescribed by the advertisement dated 20.7.2006 and they could not derive any benefit from the corrigendum dated 24.11.2008, because by the said corrigendum only the condition of age limit has been reduced from 18 years to 17 years. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 20.7.2006, an advertisement was published by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula (for brevity, ‘the Commission’) in the L.P.A. NO. 58 OF 2011 (O&M) English Daily ‘The Tribune’, advertising various posts including 616 (816?) posts of Art and Crafts Teacher at Category No. 22. The closing date for receipt of applications in the Commission’s office was 21.8.2006. A candidate desirous of applying the said post of Art and Crafts Teacher was required to possess – (i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Sechool Education Board; (ii) Two year Diploma in Art and Crafts examination conducted by Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education Department; and (iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric Standard. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that in the advertisement dated 20.7.2006, while laying down the conditions of eligibility, the official respondents stipulated the age of 18 to 40 years. The aforesaid age criterion was obviously liable to be fulfilled, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, on the last date of submission of application forms. The last date of submission of application forms depicted in the aforesaid advertisement was 21.8.2006. 4. It is conceded position that the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 acquired two years diploma in Art and Crafts Teachers Training from the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh, during November 2006, December 2007 and November 2006. In other words, they were not eligible to apply on the last date of submission of application i.e. 21.8.2006. 5. The aforesaid age stipulation was subject matter of challenge before this Court in the case of Sunita and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 16214 of 2008, decided on 2 L.P.A. NO. 58 OF 2011 (O&M) 20.11.2008). Based on the statutory rules, this Court passed certain orders which resulted in the issuance of a corrigendum dated 24.11.2008 at the hands of the Commission, whereby the advertisement dated 20.7.2006, was sought to be amended. The corrigendum reads thus: “ Reference Commission’s advertisement No. 6/2006, Cat. No. 22 dated 20.7.2008 published in the Indian Express, the Tribune, Amar Ujala & Dainik Jagran Newspapers on 21.7.2006. In compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 20.11.2008 in CWP No.16214 of 2008 – Sunita and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, the commission has considered such candidates eligible for the post of Art & Craft Teachers, who has attained the age of 17 years and also acquired the advertised qualification for the said post on or before the cut-off date i.e. 21.8.2006 for determining the eligibility against the aforesaid advertisement. Such candidates who fulfil the aforesaid both the conditions and could not apply earlier may apply now upto 10.12.2008. However, who have already applied and their applications have been rejected solely on the aforesaid ground need not require to apply again as their earlier applications will be considered. Rest of the terms and conditions will remain the same.” 6. With the grievance that despite issuance of the corrigendum dated 24.11.2008 and calling for interview on 3 L.P.A. NO. 58 OF 2011 (O&M) 16.10.2008, they were not interviewed because on the initial cut off date i.e. 21.8.2006 they lacked essential qualification, the appellants filed CWP No. 2026 of 2009, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. To fortify their view point, the appellants have placed on record a judgment dated 19.3.2010 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 210 of 2009 (Kavita Rani and others v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission) taking a contrary view that once cut-off date for making applications for one category of candidates who wanted the relaxation of age has been extended, similar treatment could not have been denied to those who acquired qualifications beyond 21.8.2006 (A-1). 7. Be that as it may. The controversy sought to be raised in the instant appeal is no longer res integra. The same has already been put at rest way back on 6.2.2009 by the Letters Patent Bench of this Court in LPA No. 48 of 2009 (Parita Yadav v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission), where a similar dispute arose. The Letters Patent Bench observed as under:- “ As a matter of examining the aforesaid issue, namely, the eligibility of the appellant as on 21.8.2006, it is apparent from the factual position noticed in paragraph 2 of the instant appeal, that the appellant fulfilled the age criterion even when the original advertisement was issued, in as much as, the appellant was within the stipulated age prescribed as on 21.8.2006. At the time of issuance of the original advertisement, the appellant did not fulfil the qualification criterion, inasmuch as, the appellant had 4 L.P.A. NO. 58 OF 2011 (O&M) not acquired a diploma in Art & Craft Teacher Training Course by the last date of submission of application forms in terms of the original advertisement dated 19.7.2006. It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant has now acquired the aforesaid course from Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, on 1.10.2008. In our view, since the acquisition of the aforesaid eligibility criterion is beyond the last date stipulated in the advertisement, and expressly prescribed in the corrigendum, namely 21.8.2006, we are satisfied that the appellant could not have been permitted to participate in the process of selection initiated with the advertisement dated 19.7.2006.” 8. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Letters Patent Bench in the case of Parita Yadav (supra) and no hesitation to adopt and follow the same. We find no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge warranting admission of the instant appeal. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) 16.2.2011 JUDGE PKapoor 5