HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSIONversusPRIYANKA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

                         [2021] 7 S.C.R. 667                              667


         HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION                               A
                                  v.
                  PRIYANKA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 5065-5095 of 2021)
                       SEPTEMBER 01, 2021                                 B
    [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
                                                                          C
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       D
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
                                                                          E
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        F
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
                                                                          G
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.
                                                                          H
                                 667
668             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A           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,
B     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,
C     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 :
                                     ORDER
D           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
E     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
F     (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.
G     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,
H
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION v. PRIYANKA &                               669
                 ORS. ETC. ETC.

and the provisional/confidential result (certificates) which were issued       A
in favour of the private respondents/candidates thus could not be the
basis on which they could have applied in response to the advertisement
dated 28.06.2015.
       Challenging the said order of rejection, the respondents filed writ
petitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and thereafter       B
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the intra court
appeals filed by the appellant/Commission. Aggrieved by the said orders
of the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court by way of
filing Special Leave to Appeals.
      We have heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel                 C
appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior
counsel along with Ms. Garima Bajaj, learned AOR for the contesting
respondents/original writ petitioners and perused the record.
       The short question which was raised before the High Court and
also before us is as to whether the provisional/confidential result declared   D
by the Universities would be a validly declared result or not. The question
has been considered by the High Court in detail and it has been held in
favour of the candidates. In our view also, as long as the authenticity of
the provisional/confidential result declared by the Universities is not in
doubt, which in the present case has been confirmed by the Universities
on the request made by the appellant/commission, the view taken by the         E
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        F
such provisional/confidential result. As such, to this extent, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order impugned in these appeals.
       Mr. Maninder Singh has then pointed out that the High Court has
gone further in directing/advising the appellant/Commission to suitably
amend its Rules to the extent that the date of eligibility should be as on     G
the date of screening or interview. The relevant portion of the judgment
of the High Court which offends the appellant/Commission, is extracted
below:
      “…………..For that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission
      could conveniently amend the Rules and/or the condition to ensure
                                                                               H
670                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A            that the date of eligibility is to be seen as on the date of Screening
             or the interview. Some of the Institutions have already done the
             same.
                    Therefore, we direct the Haryana Staff Selection
             Commission as well as State of Haryana that, for future, consider
B            the recommendations of this Court that the eligibility of educational
             qualification should be considered at the time of Screening or
             interview so that the candidates whose results are declared late,
             do not suffer and lose the chance to compete for the said post and
             possible selection.”
C            In our view, such directions, as have been issued by the High
      Court, were not necessary in the present case. As such in our opinion,
      since the said question was not in issue, the High Court ought not to
      have directed as aforesaid. We, thus, quash the aforesaid directions as
      issued in the portion of the judgment as quoted above.

D            Subject to the aforesaid, these appeals are dismissed.
             All pending intervention applications stand disposed of.
             Since this Court had, vide interim order dated 27.11.2018, directed
      that 90 posts be kept vacant by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission/
      appellant i.e., 74 posts for the private respondents herein and remaining
E     16 posts for the intervenors who had till then filed intervention applications,
      we direct that the said 90 posts be offered to the 74 private respondents
      and 16 intervenors (who have filed the intervention application prior to
      the passing of the order dated 27.11.2018) within four weeks from today,
      and they shall be given appointment on due verification, without any
F     delay.
             It is further provided that the aforesaid 90 candidates shall be
      placed just below the candidates who have already joined and the seniority
      of the 90 candidates shall be on the basis of the inter se merit among
      them. The respondents shall not be entitled to any salary for the period
      they have not worked, and they would only be entitled for their due
G
      seniority with increment, if any, as their appointment shall be deemed to
      be notionally from the date of appointment of other candidates who were
      earlier selected and appointed in response to the advertisement dated
      28.06.2015.

H
      Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeals dismissed.