हाई कोर्ट ने कहा, छूट के बावजूद शुल्क भुगतान से टीजीटी नियुक्ति नहीं रूक सकती

Paid fee despite exemption cannot cost TGT job: High Court

Candidates who scored higher than last selected candidates restored to consideration

Candidates who cleared the TGT (Sanskrit) examination with more marks than the last selected candidates cannot be denied appointment merely because they paid an application fee that they were exempted from paying, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar restored their right to be considered for appointment, holding that payment of the fee could not take away the age relaxation specifically granted to them because they had earlier applied in recruitment processes that were subsequently cancelled.

The ruling came in the case of candidates who had already been through two cancelled recruitment processes. They had first applied for TGT (Sanskrit) posts advertised in 2016, but that selection was withdrawn. The posts were advertised again in 2019, but that recruitment was also cancelled.

When the posts were advertised for the third time in 2023, Clause 11 specifically provided age and Haryana Teaching Eligibility Test (HTET) relaxation to candidates who had applied under the cancelled advertisements.

The Bench was told that the candidates were given unique IDs identifying them as applicants from the earlier cancelled recruitments. They applied, cleared the written examination and scored higher than the last selected candidates. Yet, they were left out because they were treated as overage. A notice issued on July 28, 2024, specifically cited their age as the reason for not considering them.

The dispute arose over the application fee. Clause 11 exempted the candidates from paying it. However, the candidates paid Rs 75 and Rs 150. The court found that the online portal did not provide a separate option to enter details of fees paid during the earlier recruitment processes.

Some petitioners had also received fee exemption when they applied in 2019 because of their earlier applications. They, therefore, paid the fee to ensure that their applications were not rejected because of any technical or procedural problem.

Justice Brar observed that the candidates’ caution had ultimately been turned against them.

“Little did they know that a gesture prompted by institutional conscience would raise constitutional questions, far beyond anything it had any business becoming,” the Bench said, adding that they could have skipped fee payment in the face of technical troubles, but instead chose to pay the fee, “leaving absolutely nothing to chance this time”.

The judge reminded the Commission concerned that its role was not merely to collect application fees.

“It seems that the respondent-Commission needs a gentle reminder that it is not an ordinary fee-collecting agency but bears the responsibility to conduct merit-based recruitment to public service in a manner that is fair and non-arbitrary,” Justice Brar said.

The Bench added that its focus should not be on “whether or not application fee has been submitted in spite of an exemption”, but on determining whether the prescribed criteria were satisfied.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News