SANDEEP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government and its functionaries always complain that pendency in Courts is on the rise and that steps need to be taken to reduce the same. The blame is laid at the doorstep of the Judiciary, without realising, that pendency in Courts is contributed to the maximum level by its own actions. In the present case, there is a binding precedent of a Division Bench of this Court, covering the question of law arising in the present petition, however, the same has been ignored. Had the ratio of the binding precedent been taken into consideration, filing of this writ petition could have been obviated.

(2.) The question of law which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether upon improvement of marks of a particular qualification, the same shall relate back to the date of acquiring the said qualification or not? If yes, whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar?

(3.) The facts are not in dispute and are briefly enumerated hereinafter. The Haryana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') advertised 70 posts of Naib Tehsildar vide advertisement dated 23.07.2015. Closing date for submission of online applications was 22.08.2015. For some reason, the process of appointment could not be completed and thus corrigendum dated 01.05.2018 was issued. The closing date for submission of online applications was disclosed as 15.05.2018 and eligibility with regard to qualifications and other conditions of eligibility was to be determined as on last date of submission of online application forms. Age was to be reckoned as on 01.01.2018. Essential qualifications for the post mentioned in the advertisement published on 23.07.2015 were: