NEERAJ RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common judgment, I would dispose of two writ petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 27373 of 2013, "Neeraj Rani v. State of Haryana and another" and C.W.P. No. 27382 of 2013, "Sonia v. State of Haryana and others", as common question of law and facts have arisen in these petitions. The cut-off date fixed under advertisement No. 2 of 2012 was 08.12.2012. The petitioner did not apply for the post before the closing date. The petitioner had appeared in JBT course which was an essential qualification for consideration of the application of the petitioner in September, 2012 but the result had not been declared till the closing date. The result was declared in January, 2013. The petitioner was STET qualified. A corrigendum notice was issued by the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board on 15.11.2013, in terms of directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 346 of 2013 titled "Antim Kumari v. State of Haryana and others" wherein following interim directions were issued:-

(2.) The directions of this Court were limited only to the certificate of STET which if acquired before the cut-off date, was ordered to be treated as valid and persons who had obtained the certificate after the cut-off date were directed to provisionally compete in the selection process. However, all other conditions required, as on the cut-off date i.e. 08.12.2012, were not changed and continued to be enforceable. If the petitioner had qualified the minimum educational essential qualification after the cut off date she may not be at fault insofar as date of declaration of result is concerned since that is largely in the hands of the examining body, but would led declaration of result with respect to the essential qualification required to be eligible for consideration was not possessed on the closing date for receipt of applications would not arm the petitioner from retrospective date. There may be other rights of the petitioner where she could successfully urge that the result of the JBT examination should relate back to the main examination but that may not hold true in a case of direct recruitment where a large number of eligible persons have applied to compete for public posts. The cut off dates fixed in advertisements are sacrosanct and are meant to be adhered to and departure does not deserve to be tolerated justifying interference by this Court. Any such interference would inevitably lead to revival of rights of others who did not apply because they did not possess the essential qualification together with proof of passing it on or before the cut off date. The corrigendum notice dated 15th November, 2013 was a result of interim orders passed by this Court in Antim Kumari's case to protect service of the State Teacher Eligibility Test acquired after the cut off date which were to be treated as making person eligible, though provisionally. STET is not a matter in issue in this case as the petitioner had qualified the same as she possessed that certificate before the cut off date. Here we are concerned with the questions of possessing the essential qualification itself which was the PGT course. The corrigendum issued was for good and sufficient reason since the STET test was not held in 2012 and the large number of candidates would have suffered on account of failure on the part of the respondents to conduct the test. Therefore, the petitioner can have no advantage of the corrigendum notice occasioned not by action of the Haryana School Teacher Selection Board but by orders passed by this Court which stood implemented by the corrigendum.