HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION versus PRIYANKA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 667 · Decided: 01-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
667
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
v.
PRIYANKA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5065-5095 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2021
[VINEET SARAN AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – The appellant/commission had
issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to
the post of Post-Graduate Teachers, for which, the qualifying degree
was B.Ed. – The last date for submission of the application was
12.10.2015 – The requirement was that on the date of submission
of the application the candidate should have passed B.Ed. – The
private respondents (candidates for the post) had appeared in the
B.Ed examination – Since, the final result was not declared the
private respondents were provided with the provisional/confidential
result of their B.Ed. examination by the respective universities, which
was prior to 12.10.2015 – The only ground on which the candidature
of the private respondents was rejected by the appellant was that
the result of the private respondents/candidates had not been
officially declared by the respective Universities prior to the cut off
date, i.e. 12.10.2015 – Challenging the order of rejection, the
respondents filed writ petitions – The writ petitions were allowed by
the High Court – On appeal, held: As long as the authenticity of the
provisional/confidential result declared by the Universities is not in
doubt, which in the present case was confirmed by the Universities
on the request made by the appellant/commission, the view taken by
the High Court is perfectly justified – It cannot be said that the
respondents were not qualified as on the cut off date, which was
12.10.2015, as the provisional/confidential result had been declared
by the respective Universities in favour of the candidates prior to
the said date and the applications were filed by the respondents
well within time, along with such provisional/confidential result –
No reason to interfere with the order to this extent – However, the
direction of the High Court to the appellant/commission to suitably
amend its Rules to the extent that the date of eligibility should be as
on the date of screening or interview is quashed.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 667
667
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.5065-
5095 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA Nos.362, 405, 406, 407,
408, 409, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 421, 425, 427, 434, 435,
436, 437, 439, 442, 443, 470, 517, 571, 572, 591, 613 and 968 of 2018.
Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the
Appellant.
P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Garima Bajaj, Ms. Harshita Verma,
Agnish Aditya, Nikhil Bamal, Rajiv Mangla,  Pradeep Kumar Kaushik,
Dr. Sunil Kumar, Sameer Singh, Neelam Singh, Sandiv Kalia, Satbir Singh
Pillania, Ms. Reena Rao, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant had issued an advertisement inviting applications
for appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Teachers, for which, the
qualifying degree was B.Ed. The advertisement was issued on 28.06.2015
and the last date for submission of the application was 12.10.2015. The
requirement was that on the date of submission of the application the
candidate should have passed B.Ed.
The undisputed facts in this case are that the private respondents
had appeared in the B.Ed examination of the respective Universities
and although the final result was not declared but the private respondents
(candidates for the post) were, on their demand, provided with the
provisional/confidential result of their B.Ed. examination by the respective
universities, which was prior to 12.10.2015. On the basis of such
provisional/confidential result provided to the private respondents/
candidates, they applied for the post of Post-graduate Teachers prior to
the last date of submission of the application, which was 12.10.2015.
Such facts are not in dispute before us.
The only ground on which the candidature of the private
respondents was rejected by the appellant/Commission is that the result
of the private respondents/candidates had not been officially declared
by the respective Universities prior to the cut off date, i.e. 12.10.2015,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
669
and the provisional/confidential result (certificates) which were issued
in favour of the private respondents/candidates thus could not be 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.