Haryana Staff Selection Commission vs. Subhash Chand [January 31, 2024]
Background
The dispute arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for government posts, in which Subhash Chand (respondent) sought appointment under the Economically Backward Persons in General Caste (EBPGC) category. The controversy centered on whether Subhash Chand was eligible for consideration under the EBPGC category, given the timing of his application and the issuance of the relevant certificate.
Key Facts
Subhash Chand originally applied under the Special Backward Classes (SBC) category.
Due to legal challenges and interim court orders, the State Government was restrained from implementing reservation for the SBC category.
As a result, candidates who had applied under the SBC category were considered under the General category.
Subhash Chand later obtained an EBPGC certificate, but this was after the cut-off date for applications.
Legal Issue
The primary issue was whether Subhash Chand, who had not applied under the EBPGC category before the cut-off date and obtained the certificate only later, could be granted appointment under the EBPGC quota.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the sequence of events and the factual findings of the High Court. It was noted that the District Administration began issuing EBPGC certificates only after the Chief Secretary’s instructions dated June 7, 2017. The High Court found that Subhash Chand could not be faulted for not applying under the EBPGC category before the cut-off, as the administrative process for such certificates had not commenced by then. The Court also observed that the State Government was prevented from implementing the SBC quota due to prior court orders, which led to uncertainty and confusion among candidates.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that, in these peculiar circumstances, Subhash Chand should not be penalized for the delay in obtaining the EBPGC certificate. The Court emphasized that recruitment authorities must act fairly and reasonably, especially when administrative or legal hurdles affect candidates’ ability to comply with procedural requirements.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction to appoint Subhash Chand against a post reserved for the EBPGC category, recognizing the unique facts and the administrative delays involved. The judgment was limited to the specific circumstances of this case and did not lay down a general rule for all similar matters.
Significance
This decision highlights the importance of fairness and non-arbitrariness in public recruitment, especially when candidates are affected by administrative or legal uncertainties. It underscores that procedural lapses beyond a candidate’s control should not result in denial of legitimate opportunities when the intent and eligibility are otherwise clear.
RELATED Blog
0 comments