BALJEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th July 2011 (Annexure P- 3) published by the respondents in the press, the petitioner applied for the post of Staff Nurse in the general category. The last date for applying online was 19th August, 2011. The written test for the post was held on 13th November, 2011 after it was postponed on 6th November, 2011. She secured 60 marks out of 80 in the selection test and was called for counselling on 18th January, 2012 to produce her testimonials in the original. It was then discovered by the scrutiny committee that she was not eligible for the post as she had not passed the subject of Punjabi language in the matriculation examination as a compulsory or elective subject. The administrative remarks disqualifying her candidature are found in Annexure P-4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner made a representation on 13th September, 2012 (Annexure P-5), [the day she cleared the Punjabi language paper in the matriculation examination, the test of which was held in March 2012] informing the respondents; that she had qualified the Punjabi paper; that she is a ward of a Defence Personnel and is a bona fide resident of Punjab. She got married on 28th January, 2007. A perusal of the advertisement reveals under the heading:

(2.) On summons issued, the respondents have entered appearance to contest the case and have filed a counter. In the written statement, it is pleaded that the petitioner is not a dependent of defence personnel as she was married prior to the recruitment process and has lost the status of a dependent of defence personnel. The other issue raised by the respondents is that on the last date of submissions of the applications i.e. 19th August, 2011, the petitioner had not qualified the Punjabi language examination in the 10th Class and therefore, she was not eligible for the post.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the case papers placed before this Court with no request to place anything further for its consideration. The primary issue arising and canvassed is whether the petitioner's claim can be ignored for the reason that she had not qualified the additional subject of Punjabi in the 10th Class before the date of submission of the application form as per the advertisement when she applied under the General Category and not from the category of Wards of Defence Personnel. Mr. Rajiv Prasad, learned Addl. AG appearing for the State of Punjab argues that the petitioner was married four years prior to the recruitment process and cannot be considered as a dependant of a defence personnel/exserviceman which her father may have been or is. She did not apply as a dependent of an ex-serviceman and competed in the general category. Since, the petitioner has not taken the benefit of being a dependent of exserviceman at the time of submission of application form, it would not be necessary to enter the issue. The other issue raised by Mr. Prasad, is that on the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 19th August, 2011 the petitioner had not qualified the Punjabi subject in the 10th class examination and therefore, she was not eligible for the post and her candidature has been rightly rejected. Merely because she has passed the Punjabi language paper afterward is no ground to admit her claim. The petitioner was bound by the terms of the advertisement. If a thing is required to be initiated in a particular manner, it should be done in the manner prescribed which should be strictly adhered to and if it not, it might open vistas for challenge by similarly situated persons brought in courts of law, as have also qualified the test meanwhile and may be within the zone of merit. However, no such instance is shown and only the reasoning is relied on as one which is grounded on established principles of equal opportunity and denial thereof by State machinery. No administrator could have, it is urged, taken the decision to give the petitioner the green signal. If the administrator didn't, the Court should not.