Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Change in Category During Recruitment Process

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Date: May 4, 2023

In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed by Usha Rani, seeking a change in category during the recruitment process. The petitioner had approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to consider her DESM (Dependent of Ex-Servicemen) Certificate and declare her successful in the ESM/DESM category.

The petitioner had participated in the Common Eligibility Test (CET) for Group-C posts but failed to qualify. She claimed that she possessed an Eligibility Certificate as a DESM candidate but could not upload it due to network issues during the opportunity provided for modifying the uploaded particulars. Despite submitting representations to the respondent-Commission, her requests remained unanswered.

However, Justice Suvir Sehgal, presiding over the case, noted that the petitioner had applied and appeared as a General category candidate in the CET. The court emphasized that once a candidate applies under a specific category, they cannot be permitted to change their category during the selection or recruitment process. Citing previous judgments and an advertisement condition, the court held that the petitioner's request for a change in category could not be entertained.

Additionally, the court highlighted the petitioner's failure to upload the required DESM Eligibility Certificate and her inability to take advantage of multiple opportunities provided by the respondent-Commission to address grievances or correct uploaded data. The court concluded that the petitioner was responsible for the delay in seeking a change in category and that it was too late for her to request such a change.

As a result, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and dismissed the writ petition. This decision reaffirms the principle that candidates must adhere to the category they choose during the recruitment process and highlights the importance of timely compliance with application requirements.

Decided on: 04.05.2023

Usha Rani vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Usha-Vs-Haryana-Staff-Selection-Commission.pdf"]

Latest Legal News