PARMILA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the result of screening test dtd. 6/10/2023, Annexure P-5, vide which the petitioner has not been selected for appearing in the 'Subject Knowledge Test' for the post of Post Graduate Teacher/PGT-Mathematics, pursuant to advertisements no.29 of 2023 dtd. 24/6/2023 (Rest of Haryana cadre), and 44 of 2023 dtd. 24/6/2023 (Mewat cadre), Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. Further, to quash conditions 1 (i) and 2 (e) of the Scheme/Pattern of Exam for PGT-Mathematics (for short 'Scheme of Exam'), as contained in the aforesaid advertisements, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, to quash the selection process initiated by the respondents on the basis of aforesaid conditions of the Scheme of Exam.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are;

(3.) Mr. Vivek Salathia, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Scheme of Exam followed by the respondents is contrary to the settled law on the issue of reservation, that the reserved category candidates are to be considered against un-reserved/general posts at first instance. Short-listing of candidates on the basis of their respective reserved categories, is contrary thereto as it prevents them from being considered for selection against general/un-reserved posts on the basis of merit, irrespective of the category they belong to. The petitioner scored 41.85 marks in the screening test in BC (B) category, which are higher than the marks scored by many of the general category candidates, who scored between 38.04 to 41.58, and have been selected for the subject knowledge test, as per the result declared; whereas, she has not been despite being more meritorious. Once the petitioner has scored more marks than those of the general/un-reserved candidates, she has a right to be considered against un-reserved posts irrespective of the category she belongs to, and the same cannot be denied by not selecting her for further stages of selection. He has placed reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and others, 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217 and A. P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath, 2009 (5) SCC 1, to contend that the Scheme of Exam being followed by the respondents is violative of law and needs to be set aside.