RAJIV KALORIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court praying for quashing of Clause 8 in Advertisement No. 2 dated 28.04.2014 (Annexure P -6) issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission for filling up 123 temporary posts of Veterinary Surgeon (HVS -II) in Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, Haryana.

(2.) THE challenge to this clause in the advertisement is based upon the fact that the candidate is required to possess the qualification and experience as is to be determined on or before 27.05.2014, the closing date for receipt of the applications. This, the petitioners assert, is an arbitrary condition imposed by the respondents in the advertisement, which is contrary to Rule 4 (2) of the Haryana Veterinary and Allied (Group -B) Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as '1996 Rules'). According to this sub -rule (2), a person in whose case a certificate of eligibility is necessary, may be admitted to an examination or interview conducted by the Commission or any other recruitment authority. The rider is that the offer of appointment may be given only after the necessary eligibility certificate has been issued to him by the Government.

(3.) COUNSEL contends that fixing of the cut off date in the advertisement by the respondents i.e. 27.05.2014 is against the Statutory Rules. The qualification and eligibility is to be determined at the time when the petitioners, on their selection, join the service. He, therefore, on this basis, contends that there cannot be any cut off date fixed in the advertisement by the respondents as the Statutory Rules do not provide for such a cut off date to be fixed. In support of this contention, he relies upon Rule 4(2) of the 1996 Rules. He contends that since the Statutory Rules do not provide for a cut off date except that the candidate, on the date of his appointment, should be eligible for appointment as per the Statutory Rules, no artificial date can be fixed by either the Commission or the respondent -department for determining the eligibility of a candidate. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhupinderpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2011. He has referred to para -13 of the said judgment to contend that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications. If there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. He, accordingly, contends that the cut off date fixed by the respondents being contrary to Statutory Rules cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside. He states that the Statutory Rules are enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, have a force of law and in the absence of any legislation contrary to the same, the Statutory Rules would have precedence over the decisions taken by the Government on the administrative side.