HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. SANDEEP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present letters patent appeal by the Commission is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 27507 of 2019, Sandeep Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others dtd. 23/4/2021. Vide the said order, the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) has been held entitled to the benefit of the improved marks in Class 10th and 12th and directions have been issued that if he has secured higher marks than the last selected candidate, he would be granted the benefit of appointment. It has also been noticed that two vacancies exist for the post of Naib Tehsildar and, therefore, it has also been further recorded that respondent no. 3 therein need not be dislodged.

(2.) The question of law which had arisen for consideration with the learned Single Judge was "whether on improvement of marks of a particular qualification, the same is to relate back to the date of acquiring the said qualification or not". Having answered the same in the positive, directions were accordingly issued for appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of Naib Tehsildar.

(3.) The reasoning which prevailed with the learned Single Judge was the earlier binding view in the judgment of the Division Bench in CWP No. 23896 of 2012, Preeti Gulia vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 10/1/2013 wherein, it had been held that the improvement of score relates back to the date on which the qualification was acquired. The reliance on the provisions of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services and Other Services Common/Combined Examination Act, 2002 by the Commission were distinguished that it pertain to the number of candidates to be called for the advertised posts and that no candidate has a right to seek appointment beyond the advertised posts. The judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 733 of 2010, Km. Anjuman Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. and others, dtd. 21/2/2018 was distinguished by holding that it was not a question of acquisition of eligibility after the cut off date but of improving the score after the cut off date which would relate back to the date of examination in which the score was improved. Even otherwise, on account of the binding precedent of the Division Bench of this Court, the learned Single Judge had also rightly followed the said view to grant the necessary relief.