In CWP No. 26995 of 2017-PUNJ HC- P&H HC upholds cancellation of candidature for post of Assistant Professor as petitioners failed to submit hard copy of their online application forms with Selection Agency before last date
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi [07-11-2022]

Read Order: Poonam Choudhary v. State of Haryana and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, November 10, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed petitions filed by candidates who were otherwise fully eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, but were were not considered for appointment on the ground that the hard copy of the application form was submitted by them after the last date fixed by the Selecting Agency, while declaring the result of the written examination debarring them from participating in the selection process any further. 

The Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi held, 

“... the claim of the petitioners as raised in the present petitions cannot be accepted for the reason that it is a conceded position that the petitioners failed to submit their hard copy of the online application form with the respondent-Commission before the last date fixed… which was mandatory hence, cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners by the respondentCommission cannot be faulted…”

In the present petitions, the grievance of the petitioners was that though they were fully eligible and qualified for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor by the respondents and secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the category in which they were competing, still they were not considered for selection and appointment on the ground that the hard copy of the application form was submitted by them after the last date as communicated to the petitioners by the Selecting Agency, while declaring the result of the written examination debarring them from participating in the selection process any further. 

In this matter, the respondents submitted that while declaring the result, it was mentioned that the candidates were required to submit the hardcopy of the application form along with required documents within the time specified and since the petitioners failed to do so, the petitioners’ claim for selection and appointment in pursuance to the advertisement could not be considered any further as the submission of hard copy by the last date mentioned was mandatory.

The respondents further submitted that in similar facts and circumstances, in an another selection process, one Rekha Jangra and Suman Lata, who were similarly situated as the petitioners herein, who had also not submitted the hard copy of the application form before the last date prescribed, the Single Judge observed in therein [Rekha Jangra Vs. State of Haryana and others] that the said requirement of submission of hard copy of the application form up to the last date prescribed was mandatory hence, the claim of the said candidate, was rightly not considered any further by the respondent-Commission for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in the College Cadre. 

In response, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the reliance being placed by the second respondent on the order of the Single Judge in the case of Rekha Jangra's case (supra) could not be accepted as in that case, the respondents were directed to consider her against the reserved vacant posts for appointment as the said candidate had secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the category in which she was competing keeping in view the fact that a post was kept reserved, hence, keeping in view the order passed by the Division Bench, the petitioners were also entitled for the same relief. 

The question which came for the Court’s consideration was whether once a direction is issued by Selecting Agency for compliance while considering the claim of eligible candidates in a selection process, the non-compliance of the said condition will oust the candidate from the zone of consideration even if the candidate has secured more marks than the last selected candidate,  even though the said direction was given subsequently during the selection process and was not part of the main advertisement.

First of all, the Court considered whether the petitioners were covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Rekha Jangra's case (supra) or whether petitioners need to be extended the benefits as extended to Rekha Jangra by the Division Bench or not. 

In this regard, the Court observed that while giving the benefit to Rekha Jangra, the Division Bench clearly stated that the said benefit was extended to Rekha Jangra as a one time measure and was not to be treated as a precedent. 

“That being so, the order passed by the Division Bench cannot be brought into operation by the petitioners to claim the benefit”, the Court held. 

Further, the Bench added, 

“The judgment of the Single Judge passed in CWP No.1379 of 2017 was never set aside. Hence, once the law settled by the Coordinate Bench was never set aside by the Division Bench, law as settled by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No.1379 of 2017 dated 30.01.2017 is to be made applicable upon the petitioners.”

With respect to the present petition, the Court held that the claim of the petitioners as raised in the present petitions could not be accepted for the reason that they failed to submit their hard copy of the online application form with the respondent-Commission before the last date fixed, which was mandatory hence, it was held by the Bench that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners by the respondent-Commission could not be faulted with. 

Further, the fact that the other candidates who failed to submit the application form, were declined further consideration for appointment in pursuance to the same advertisement was considered by the Court to hold that the petitioners could not be given the benefit when same yardstick was applied by the Recruiting Agency against all candidates and there could be candidates who were more meritorious than the petitioners who accepted the cancellation of their candidature, hence, the petitioners could not be given the benefit of relaxation in the mandatory requirement of submission of hard copy of the application so as to consider them eligible for being appointed as Assistant Professor. 

Accordingly, the present petitions were dismissed.