P&H HC Orders Haryana To Reconsider Storekeeper Applicant, Treating Experience After B.Com Result As Valid Despite Later Marksheet Correction

The petitioner applied for the post of Store Keeper under the Scheduled Caste category and was declared ineligible because the experience certificate he submitted related to a period before the issue of his corrected B.Com. marks card.

He contended that he had passed the B.Com. Part-III examination in October 2011, with the result declared on 6 January 2012, and that the marks card was corrected and reissued in June 2014 to rectify an error in the recorded aggregate marks.

The University record confirming the examination and result dates was before the Court.

The petitioner challenged the decision declaring him ineligible and sought consideration of his candidature.

Under Haryana Staff Selection Commission v. Priyanka, Civil Appeal Nos. 5065–5095 of 2021, where the authenticity of a University’s result is established, a candidate’s qualification may be assessed by the date the result was declared rather than by a later formal document date.

In Harpreet Kaur v. State of Haryana, LPA-612-2023, the Division Bench held that recruitment agencies should generally consider the date a candidate passed the examination, not the date the certificate was issued; procedural delays in issuing certificates should not, by themselves, prejudice candidates.

The Court applied these principles in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The University certificate showed that the petitioner passed the B.Com. Part-III examination in October 2011 and that the result was declared on 6 January 2012; the later correction concerned his marks and led to the corrected marks card being issued in June 2014.

Applying Priyanka and Harpreet Kaur, the Court held that the later issue of the corrected marks card did not alter the date on which the qualification was acquired.

Accordingly, experience obtained after 6 January 2012 was to be treated as valid, subject to the other applicable eligibility conditions.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature, treating experience acquired after 6 January 2012 as valid, subject to fulfilment of the remaining eligibility requirements, and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

If appointed, the petitioner would be entitled to admissible consequential and notional benefits from the date his batchmates joined, but not salary for the period during which he did not work; salary would be payable from his actual joining date.