Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 112
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6395/2023
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUBHASH CHAND & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Despite service, none appears for the second and the third
respondents.
2.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent.
3. The appellant-Haryana Staff Selection Commission published an
th
advertisement on 28 June, 2015 inviting applications for the posts
of (PGT)-H.E.S.II (Group-B Services). The closing date for the
st
submission of online applications was 21 September, 2015. The
th
last date for the deposit of fee by the candidates was 24
September, 2015. The advertisement itself specifies the posts
reserved for various categories, including SBC (5%) and EBPGC (5%).
The first respondent specifically applied under the SBC category
th
for the post of PGT in Political Science. It appears that on 29
Signature Not Verified
August, 2018, the first respondent was informed that he was
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2024.02.15
09:51:45 IST
Reason:
qualified in the written test and, therefore, he was called for
1
scrutiny of documents. In the result declared on
th
17 September, 2018, the first respondent was shown in the General
category. The first respondent secured total 118 marks. The cut-
off in the General category was 129 marks and, therefore, the first
respondent was not selected.
4.
It appears that the Government of Haryana issued
st st
communications dated 21 February, 2018 and 1 June, 2018,
recording therein that in view of the order passed by the High
th
Court in CWP No.18514/2016, the Notification dated 27 September,
2013, should not be given effect. The said Notification dated
th
27 September, 2013 was for providing a quota to the candidates
belonging to the SBC category.
th
5. On 5 June, 2017, a certificate was issued to the first
th
respondent recording that he belongs to the EBPGC category. On 29
August, 2018, the first respondent filed a representation to
consider the change of his category to the EBPGC category. Perhaps,
this representation was made considering the stand that the quota
notified for SBC category was merged into the General category. The
st
above representation was followed by one more representation on 1
October, 2018.
rd
6.
As the representation was not considered, on 3 October, 2018,
the first respondent filed a writ petition being CWP No.25782/2018
(O&M) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the
th
High Court. While issuing notice on the said writ petition, on 8
October, 2018, one post was ordered to be kept reserved. The
2
th
learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 10 December,
th
2018, referred to the interim order dated 8 October, 2018 and
observed that the State of Haryana did not dispute the rest of the
conditions of eligibility, except the category. A direction was
issued by the High Court to grant appointment to the first
respondent in General Caste (EBPGC) category. A Letters Patent
Appeal being LPA No.1199/2019 was preferred by the appellant before
the Division Bench of the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal
th
was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24 March, 2023.
7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant is that the first respondent never applied under the
quota reserved for the EBPGC category before the cut-off date and,
in fact, he was granted the certificate long after the cut-off
date. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the directions
th th
issued by the High Court on 27 June, 2015 and 26 May, 2016, the
State Government was restrained from acting upon the Notifications
th th
dated 28 February, 2013 and 24 January, 2013. Thus, the State
Government was prevented from giving effect to the reservation for
the SBC category quota. Therefore, the applications of those
candidates who had applied under the SBC category quota were
ordered to be considered against the General category. The learned
counsel further submitted that the first respondent did not score
enough marks to get appointment in the General category and,
therefore, he was not selected. The learned counsel also submitted
that the appellant has acted in terms of the directions issued by
the High Court.
3
8.
We have also heard the learned senior counsel appearing for
the first respondent.
9. The first order of the High Court directing the State
Government not to give any employment in the Government service and
admission in the educational institutions against the SBC category
th
was passed on 27 July, 2015 in CWP No.9132/2015 ( Ved Prakash and
another vs. State of Haryana and others ). A perusal of the said
order (Annexure R/5 to the counter affidavit) shows that the State
Government was represented by the learned Advocate General when the
said order was passed. It is pertinent to note that the
advertisement subject matter of controversy was issued on
th
28 June, 2015 and the last date for submitting online applications
st
was 21 September, 2015. Obviously, it was the duty of the State
Government to instruct the appellant to modify the advertisement
and postpone the last date of submission of the online
th
applications. Having full knowledge of the order dated 27 July,
2015 of the High Court, the State Government and the appellant took
no steps, therefore, the candidates like the first respondent
applied under the SBC category quota.
10.
Even assuming that the State Government and the appellant
th
overlooked the order dated 27 July, 2015 of the High Court, even
after noticing the said order, the State Government could have
directed the appellant to cancel the process and issue a fresh
advertisement. We may note here that though the cut-off date for
st
submitting the online applications was 21 September, 2015, the
4
result of the written test was declared nearly three years
th
thereafter on 29 August, 2018. It is because of the default on
the part of the State Government, the first respondent was
prevented from making an application in the EBPGC category. These
aspects have been considered by the Division Bench of the High
Court in the impugned judgment. In fact, in the impugned judgment,
it is noted that the District Administration started receiving the
applications for issuance of EBPGC certificates only when the
th
instructions were issued on 7 June, 2017 by the Chief Secretary of
the Government of Haryana. Therefore, the finding of fact recorded
by the Division Bench is that the first respondent cannot be blamed
for claiming reservation under the SBC category quota and for not
claiming reservation under the EBPGC category quota. It is in the
light of these peculiar facts that the Division Bench has confirmed
the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As noted earlier, the
learned Single Judge has directed the appointment of the first
respondent to be made against one post reserved under the interim
order. At this stage, we may note here that the contention of the
learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent is that
about 11 seats belonging to the EBPGC category quota earmarked
under the same advertisement are still vacant.
11. Considering the fact that the first respondent was placed in a
very peculiar position due to the default on the part of the State
Government, the learned Single Judge has passed an order for
accommodating the first respondent. The order is just and
equitable.
5
12.
In view of the peculiar facts which we have discussed above,
we are of the view that no interference with the impugned judgments
is called for. While we say so, we direct that the appointment
order be issued to the first respondent in terms of the impugned
th
judgment dated 10 December, 2018 of the learned Single Judge
within a period of one month from the date on which a copy of this
judgment is uploaded on the website of this Court. We clarify that
the first respondent shall not be entitled to back wages. However,
th
the period from 10 December, 2018 till the date on which the
appointment order is issued, shall be taken into consideration for
grant of further promotions, if any, and for retiral benefits.
13.
Subject to the above directions, the Appeal is dismissed.
..........................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)
..........................J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 31, 2024.
6