HSSC selection: Can oust employees from service, if they are not within selection zone, states Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 17

More than three years after Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised posts for clerks, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to accept the argument that employees cannot be ousted from the service after the issuance of revised merit list even if they are not within the selection zone.

The commission had initially issued advertisement for 4858 posts, but the number was reduced to 4798. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi’s Bench was told that the selection was set aside by another Bench. But appointment to the posts had already been made keeping in view the initial recommendations by the respondent-commission.

It was, as such, directed that candidates already selected and appointed would be allowed to continue, if found meritorious enough to be included in the fresh merit list. The left-out candidates would be issued show cause notice before taking any action.

The earlier selected and appointed candidates, who could not make it to the fresh selection, moved the court after the commission passed order withdrawing its recommendation following which they were required to be relieved from service.

Among other things, it was argued that the petitioners were working for last three years. Keeping in view the time already rendered in service, they were entitled to continue even if respondents were to create posts as there was no misrepresentation on their part to claim benefits.

“Prayer of the petitioners that they cannot be ousted from the service now after revised merit list despite the fact that they are not within the selection zone keeping in view the number of posts advertised cannot be accepted. In case it is accepted, not only posts more than the advertised will be filled up, but the direction is capable of being misused so as to make selection contrary to the provisions and thereafter give a right to the ineligible selected candidates to continue in service, which is not permissible under law,” Justice Sethi asserted.

The observations

• Court cannot accept the argument that certificates submitted by candidates for claiming reservation under the EWS category cannot be treated invalid subsequently once they are selected on its basis.
• Candidates do not fulfil the requisite conditions for appointment with Government of Haryana in the reserved category of EWS once it is conceded position that EWS certificate attached with their application is not in accordance with the requirement for service with State but related to service with Government of India.
• Five-mark benefit was to be given where none of the applicant’s family was a government employee. But it was given to certain married women candidates by interpreting clause in advertisement to mean the in-laws’ family. “The claim of the petitioners that working status of their in-laws family is to be taken into consideration cannot be accepted.”
• The respondents subsequent to the advertisement changed the family’s definition to grant five marks under the socio-economic criteria as per the status of in-laws’ family. It is settled principle of law that instructions cannot be made operative with retrospective effect. It can only be made effective prospectively.