In this case, the court’s legal analysis played a crucial role in examining the implementation of caste category quotas in recruitment. The court’s scrutiny of the State Government’s actions and the appellant’s compliance with court orders sheds light on the complexities of adhering to reservation policies. The court’s focus on fairness and equity in the recruitment process underscores the importance of upholding legal principles in such sensitive matters. Stay tuned to uncover the implications of the court’s legal analysis in this intricate legal case.
Facts
- First respondent applied under the SBC category for a post of PGT in Political Science.
- First respondent secured 118 marks and applied before the closing date on 21 September 2015.
- First respondent filed a representation to change his category to EBPGC on 29 August 2018.
- First respondent was informed of qualification in the written test on 29 August 2018.
- First respondent was shown in the General category in the result declared on 17 September 2018.
- Cut-off for the General category was 129 marks, and hence the first respondent was not selected.
- Certificate issued on 5 June 2017 recorded the first respondent’s category as EBPGC.
- Government communications dated 21 February 2018 and 1 June 2018 mentioned the non-effectiveness of the 27 September 2013 notification providing quota for SBC category candidates.
- First respondent filed a writ petition on 3 October 2018 as the representation was not considered.
- High Court specified reserved posts for various categories including SBC (5%) and EBPGC (5%).
- Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 24 March 2023.
- High Court issued a direction to grant appointment to the first respondent in General Caste (EBPGC) category.
- Appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
- Learned Single Judge referred to an interim order and noted that the State of Haryana did not dispute other eligibility conditions except the category.
Also Read: Judicial Impropriety and Fresh Decision
Arguments
- The appellant-Haryana Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement on 28 June, 2015 for the posts of PGT-H.E.S.II (Group-B Services).
- The first respondent never applied under the quota reserved for the EBPGC category before the cut-off date.
- The first respondent was granted the certificate long after the cut-off date.
- The State Government was restrained from acting upon specific Notifications due to directions issued by the High Court.
- Applications of candidates who applied under the SBC category quota were to be considered against the General category.
- The first respondent did not score enough marks to get appointment in the General category and was not selected.
- The State Government was prevented from giving effect to the reservation for the SBC category quota.
- The appellant acted in terms of the directions issued by the High Court.
Also Read: Quashing of Complaint: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The State Government and the appellant did not take any steps to modify the advertisement or postpone the last date for submission of online applications despite knowing about the High Court order.
- The first respondent applied under the SBC category quota due to the default on the part of the State Government.
- The District Administration started receiving applications for EBPGC certificates only after instructions were issued by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana.
- The Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge based on these peculiar facts.
- The Single Judge directed the appointment of the first respondent to be made against a post reserved under the interim order.
- The State Government could have directed the appellant to cancel the process and issue a fresh advertisement even after noticing the High Court order.
- The result of the written test was declared nearly three years after the cut-off date for submitting online applications, due to delays caused by the State Government.
- Due to the State Government’s default, the first respondent was unable to apply in the EBPGC category.
- The Division Bench considered all these aspects in the impugned judgment.
- No interference with the impugned judgments is called for
- The order is deemed just and equitable
Also Read: Legal Interpretation of Overriding Effect in Food Safety Legislation
Decision
- Appointment order to be issued to the first respondent as per the judgment dated 10 December, 2018 of the learned Single Judge within one month of this judgment being uploaded on the court’s website.
- Dismissal of the appeal with the above directions.
- First respondent not entitled to back wages.
- Period from 10 December, 2018 until the date of issuance of the appointment order considered for future promotions and retiral benefits.
Case Title: HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION Vs. SUBHASH CHAND (2024 INSC 112)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006395-006395 / 2023
