BELA BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-1), applied for the post of Female Supervisor, the qualification whereof was Graduation from a recognised university, preferably in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition with Hindi/Sanskrit up to Metric Standard. He contends that respondent No. 2 has resorted to shortlisting of the candidates by fixing a minimum percentage of marks in the respective category and interview on the basis of essential academic advertised qualification i.e. Graduation, which has resulted into virtually deleting the preferential clause added in the qualification, which is in Home Science or Child Development or Nutrition. Petitioner possesses the Graduation degree in Home Science with 63.24% marks. Vide the shortlisting process, the minimum marks of general category have been fixed as 65% as per the public notice dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-6), which has rendered the petitioner without a chance for competing for the post. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had, after the advertisement was issued, placed on the website of the Commission the process chart of recruitment, according to which, after the receipt of applications, scrutiny and punching of all category examinations, the next process would be the preparation of roll numbers and written examination. He contends that Commission had already taken a decision to hold an examination and by issuance of the public notice dated 01.08.2012, the Commission has resorted to deviating from the already decided procedure and for which, no rationale criteria has been adopted or reasons assigned therein. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 497, wherein it has been held that in a given situation, a decision taken by the State may be changed but for that, good and sufficient reasons must be assigned. Since respondent No. 2-Commission has not assigned good and sufficient reasons for changing the mode of shortlisting, the process resorted to by respondent No. 2-Commission vide public notice dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure P-6) cannot be said to be in accordance with law. He, accordingly, prays for the present writ petition to be allowed.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.

(3.) In a similar case i.e. titled as Mandhir and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 15822 of 2012 decided on 17.08.2012, where this very argument qua this very selection and shortlisting had been challenged, this Court has held as follows:-