Don’t deny job to meritorious due to procedural lapses: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 12

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that procedural lapses should not deprive meritorious candidates of employment opportunities, particularly when it arises from financial hardship.

Emphasising a humane approach in public recruitment processes, the Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma also clarified that the date of passing an examination, rather than the date of issuance of the certificate, should be the determining factor for eligibility.

The ruling came on a petition by a candidate challenging her exclusion from the selection process for science master cadre post in the general category. Despite securing 98 marks out of 150 in the written examination and surpassing the cut-off, she was not called for document verification because she could not submit her BEd degree certificate by the stipulated deadline.

The Bench was told that the candidate could not obtain the certificate on time due to financial hardship and her father’s serious illness. Though she passed her exams in May 2017, she could only pay the university fee required for the certificate in September 2022, leading to its issuance after the recruitment cut-off date.

The Bench asserted: “These are all procedural lapses/delays for which the students/candidates/aspirants for job should not suffer. We have observed in other matters also, some time there is lapse/delay on the part of certain educational institutions in issuance of marks sheet/degrees. Therefore, the recruitment agencies should take into consideration the date and year of passing of the examination and not the date of issuance of the certificate.”

The Bench further clarified a candidate should be issued appointment letter subject to verification of the educational qualification certificates in exceptional cases entailing doubt regarding the authenticity of the marks sheet/date of declaration of results. “It would reduce the unnecessary litigation and encourage meritorious candidates,” it said.

The Bench asserted: “Poverty is a hard reality of life, and poor parents often sacrifice their own needs, even cutting back on meals, to provide the best education to their children. Despite the family’s financial struggles, meritorious candidates like the appellant-petitioner should not be overlooked as doing so would discourage such candidates. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant-petitioner was ineligible before the cut-off date, nor did she fail to produce the provisional result for her fourth semester”.

Before parting with the case, the Bench directed the candidate to be considered for appointment, recognising her merit and acknowledging the challenging circumstances she faced. It also clarified that recruitment agencies must be prudent in selecting the best candidates by “ignoring procedural lapse(s) in the documents”.

The ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of a compassionate approach in public recruitment, ensuring that deserving candidates are not penalised for procedural delays or financial hardships.