MEENA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order two writ petitions (CWP No. 10091 and 11239 of 1993) are being disposed of together as the common facts as well as question of law arise.

(2.) The petitioner in response to advertisement dated May 10, 1993-Annexure P.l applied to the Haryana Public Service Commission for the posts of child welfare Development Project Officers. The applications forms along with instructions were purchased by the petitioner(s) from the commission on payment of requisite price. Though in the advertisement it was mentioned that the examination fee was to be deposited in the Treasury by the candidates belonging to the State of Haryana, however, the instructions accompanying the forms which were purchased by the petitioner(s) mentioned that the fee could be paid in the by sending postal orders. The petitioners in these two writ petitions sent postal orders worth Rs. 10.00, the requisite fee, along with their applications which were received by the Commission within the time prescribed. Their applications were rejected vide order- Annexure P3 on the ground that their applications were not accompanied by treasury challan receipts. The representation filed by one of the petitioners Miss Gunjeet Kang was rejected by order dated Sept. 1, 1993-Annexure P.5 in her case. Both the petitioners have approached this Court against the order of rejection of their candidatures. According to them they could, as per instructions attached with the forms, I deposit or send the fee by postal orders. The stand of the Commission in response to l notice of motion is that the instructions which were prevalent earlier might have been wrongly supplied to the petitioners along with the forms purchased by them. However, subsequently afresh instructions were issued mentioning therein that only fees by (candidates belonging to Haryana, were to be deposited in the Treasury and as such treasury challans were required to be enclosed with the forms, their application will be rejected.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties we are of the view that the mistake, if any was on the part of the Commission which made the petitioners to send postal orders along with their application forms as per the instructions supplied to them along with the application forms and for that the petitioners should not be made to suffer. Furthermore the object of collecting examination fee is only that such fee should be received by the Commission well in time. On such hyper technical ground it was not at all justified for the Commission to reject the application of the petitioners who otherwise were fulfilling the requisites.