High Court asks HPSC to explain its conduct

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) to explain the referring of an official file to a “private person” for comments in a case revolving around the submission of application forms for the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch).

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 19

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) to explain the referring of an official file to a “private person” for comments in a case revolving around the submission of application forms for the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The court also deprecated the signing of an affidavit by a superintendent “as if there is no senior officer available”.

The developments took place on a petition filed against the State of Haryana and another respondent by Ishaan Sharma and another petitioner through counsel Roja Agnihotri. Appearing before a Division Bench, Agnihotri submitted that the present petition had been rendered infructuous, as the last date for the receipt of applications was extended and the petitioners were able to upload their forms.

Disposing of the petition accordingly, the Bench on the previous date of hearing asserted that it was pointed out during the course of hearing that the decision to extend the date for submission of applications was taken up in a meeting of the High Court Selection Committee HCS (JB) held on October 17, on a reference made by the commission.

It was recorded in the minutes of the meeting that the agency entrusted by the commission with the job of receiving online applications would issue a “certificate” within a week, along with necessary proof, regarding the breakdown/ malfunctioning of the server. The commission chairman attended the meeting. But admittedly, there was no certificate with the commission. The only thing available with the commission, on the basis of which reference was made to the High Court, was a noting on its official file by some person signing on behalf of “Safedot eSolution Private Limited”.

The Bench added the person, who had made the noting in the official file, had not even mentioned his designation and authority. “In fact, the official file was referred to him, instead of seeking explanation. It is a procedure totally unknown. An official file is never referred to a private person for comments therein. The commission needs to explain this conduct,” the Bench said. At the request of a counsel, the hearing was, subsequently, adjourned to January next year.