C.W.P No. 18034 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 18034 of 2008 Date of decision : January 22, 2009 Sanjeev Kumar ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl. A.G Haryana *** 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 The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent in not considering him eligible for the post of Art and Craft Teacher on the ground that he did not have requisite qualification on the cut of date i.e 21.8.2006. Admittedly, the result of the petitioner was declared on 10.11.2006. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Roopa Sharma vs State of Punjab and others, 1998 (1) RSJ 494. In Roopa Sharma's case (supra), for recruitment to the post of C.W.P No. 18034 of 2008 ::2:: Ayurvedic Medical Officer, there was a requirement of knowledge of Panjabi of matriculation standard. The date fixed was 30.4.1996, while the petitioner therein had passed her Panjabi examination on 15.9.1996. The interview was fixed on 25.9.1996. On a consideration of the words used, the Division Bench in Roopa Sharma's case (supra) held as follows :- “7. We, however, find merit in the second submission of Shri Chopra that Board could have tested the knowledge of the petitioner of Punjabi language only at the stage of interview and not earlier and therefore, its decision to reject the candidature of the petitioner must be declared as arbitrary. The counter argument made by the learned Deputy Advocate General is that although the rule 17 of the Rules of 1994 and clause 7 of the advertisement are not happily worded, inasmuch as they do not lay down that the candidate should have passed in examination of Punjabi Language of matriculation standard but in order to become eligible for recruitment a candidate must show that he/she has passed such examination. We are unable to agree with Mrs. Tuli. What is implicit in her argument is that the language of the rule 17should be re-written by the Court with a view to incorporate the requirement of passing of an examination in Punjabi language of matriculation standard. That is not the function of the Court. While enacting rule 17, the rule making authority must be C.W.P No. 18034 of 2008 ::3:: presumed to be aware of the necessity to incorporate a condition regarding the knowledge of Punjabi language of matriculation standard only and not of having passed an examination in Punjabi language of matriculation standard only and not of having passed an examination in Punjabi language of matriculation standard. If the rule making authority has not considered it necessary to incorporate the requirement of passing of examination of matriculation standard in Punjabi language, we do not find any justifiable reason to read such a requirement in the rules.” The said case is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, the requirement was as follows :- “i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana School Education Board. ii) Two year Diploma in Art and Crafts Examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department.” It can, thus, be seen that there is no such ambiguity in the present case. In Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs Chander Shekhar and another, 1997(3) RSJ 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “....... The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall C.W.P No. 18034 of 2008 ::4:: have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all......” In this view of the matter, the petitioner's result having declared almost three months after the last date, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be considered eligible. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 22, 2009. JUDGE `kk'