Remove inapt ‘fatherless certificate’ terminology, High Court tells HSSC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) to address and rectify the use of the term ‘fatherless certificate’ in its official documents and replies. The court found the expression to be inappropriate and undignified, and has mandated the Commission to take immediate corrective measures before filing a compliance report.

The direction came as Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri allowed a petition seeking directions to the Commission and other respondents to consider petitioner Ajay Kumar’s candidature for assistant lineman’s post after giving him five marks weightage.

Justice Puri’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that 90 marks were assigned to written examination and remaining 10 for socioeconomic criteria and experience. A candidate was entitled to five marks under the socioeconomic criteria if he was the first, or the second child, and his father had died before turning 42, or was the first, or the second, child and his father had died before he attained the age of 15.

Justice Puri asserted his entitlement to five marks was not disputed by the Commission. The only objection was that the relevant document or certificate was not uploaded by the petitioner while filing the application form. It was, rather, submitted at the time of documents’ scrutiny after the cut-off date.

Quoting a plethora of judgments, Justice Puri asserted the Supreme Court observed in Dolly Chhanda’s case that there could be no straightjacket formula. “In the facts and circumstances of each and every case, direction can be issued because there can be no rigid principle because it pertains to the domain and procedure and any infraction of any rule related to the submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of the candidature”.

Justice Puri asserted it was a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and to issue directions to the Commission to consider the petitioner’s case on the basis of the certificate eventually submitted before processing the same and passing an order.

His case was then directed to be forwarded to the department concerned for “further process” in case he was in the merit zone, especially as a post was kept vacant following the high court’s interim order. “In case he finds merit in waiting list, his case be processed according to the procedure to be followed in the case of candidates falling in waiting list in accordance with law,” the Bench asserted.