SARITA KUMARI Vs. HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacist against advertisement No. 1/2010 in category No. 02 (Pharmacist). The claim of the petitioner for being called for interview for the post has been rejected by the impugned order dated 14.09.2012 (P -12) on the ground that the minimum marks required for the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy for general category candidates like the petitioner, was fixed at 65% or more in terms of the advertisement. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.09.2012. This order has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 17883 of 2012 preferred by the petitioner. This Court by order dated 12.09.2012 directed the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2012.

(2.) THE State Board Diploma was produced by the petitioner in support of his candidature with the application called by the State Board of Technical Education, Government of Haryana as proof of completion of prescribed two years diploma course. The petitioner completed the course in January 1994 at the Govt. Polytechnic, Mandi -Adampur. She had passed the Final State Board Examination in the First Division securing 777 marks out of 1200. The Certificate was issued on 21.04.1995 by the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana. 777 marks out of 1200 comes to 64.75%, a little shy of 65%. The Commission by the impugned order informed that rounding off of marks is not permissible. The decision of this Court in Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) RSJ 175 was cited to reject the plea of rounding off marks as not legally permissible. Therefore, the representation was rejected and the petitioner was held to be ineligible to be called for interview. By the interim order dated 17.09.2012 the petitioner was provisionally ordered to be interviewed but her result was directed not to be declared and to be kept in sealed cover. This Court ordered that participation of the petitioner in the interview will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner for appointment to the post.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured 746 marks out of 1100 in the 1st Year of the two years diploma course which comes to 67.8% and in the 2nd Year/Final Year she secured 777 marks out of 1200 which comes to 64.75%. When the marks secured in both the years are added the total pass percentage comes to 66.2% which is more than the percentage required for eligibility for being called for interview and, therefore, the petitioner has a right to be considered for interview and consequently, a result in sealed cover may be opened to know whether the petitioner makes it on merit for appointment.