Choice Of Orthodox Interpretation Of Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹1.5L Cost On HPSC For Rejecting Judiciary Aspirant’s Candidature

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for rejecting the candidature of a judiciary aspirant.

The Court was deciding a Writ Petition filed by the aggrieved candidate, seeking for grant of a writ for her appointment as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana State.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel remarked, “Judicial notice can well be taken by this Court that, such reservation certificate(s) are, more often than not, issued at the end of the concerned authority(s) and a candidate does not have any say nay authoritative say in issuance thereof. In actual life, it is often exasperatingly cumbersome for a candidate to obtain requisite certificate nay one issued in the exact prescribed form from the concerned authority. A technical irregularity/defect in such certificate(s) issued by the concerned competent authority is, thus, beyond the control of an aspirant. Actual excellence or even basic eligibility, thus, cannot be permitted to be obliterated by the choice of an orthodox interpretation of law and procedure.”

The Bench added that equity ought to overpower technicality where the justice so demands and in the realm of writ jurisdiction, Courts are duty bound to uphold the paramount cause of substantial justice, ensuring that the dispensation of justice is not thwarted by mere technicalities.

Senior Advocate Anand Chhibar appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Addl. Advocate General (AAG) Naveen S. Bhardwaj appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

Vide an advertisement, the HPSC advertised the vacancies of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Haryana State. The Petitioner-candidate submitted an online application form, as a Scheduled Caste Certificate (SC Certificate) within the stipulated time. She then appeared for the preliminary examination and upon passing the same, she cleared the main written examination. The schedule of viva voce was issued and she was slated to be interviewed.

Subsequently, she received an intimation from HPSC and she informed via email that her requisite caste certificate as also the domicile certificate had already been submitted but somehow the registration number and date was missing from the SC certificate. She pleaded that the certificate submitted was correct one and the same was issued based on a SC certificate of her father. She also sought for a clarification regarding the genuineness of her SC certificate from Tehsildar, Gurugram and the same was found to be genuine by the said authority. She informed HPSC about it as well. However, the HPSC rejected her candidature and being aggrieved, she approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “While procedural considerations serve as necessary safeguards to ensure orderly adjudication, they must never be exalted to the extent that they eclipse the fundamental tenets of fairness, equity and justice or even moribund the cause of justice. The Court, as a sentinel of justice, must wield its discretionary power to prevent miscarriage of justice arising from rigid adherence to procedural formalities.”

The Court said that equity, being the soul of justice, demands that the Courts adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach, ensuring that the form does not triumph over the substance.

“A constitutional court, vested with extra-ordinary jurisdiction, must, therefore, eschew hyper-technical reasoning and focus on the broader ends of justice, for the law must ever remain a handmaiden to justice & not an instrument of oppression or procedural entanglement”, it further emphasised.

The Court was of the view that the quashing of the impugned Order would serve the cause of complete nay substantial and substantial and restitutive justice.

“In discharging its role as a litigant, the State (as also its instrumentalities) must adopt a balanced and judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims indiscriminately”, it also noted.

The Court observed that the State must exercise due diligence in distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim. Moreover, it noted that unlike a private litigant whose sole objective is often to secure a favourable judgment, the State bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity.

“The Courts across the legal system this Court being not an exception are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless dispute(s) constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the overburdened infrastructure. Productive resources, which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes, are dissipated in pursuing worthless cause(s). In our jurisprudential eco-system, the State is the largest litigant today and the huge expenditure involved makes a big draft on the public exchequer”, it said.

The Court remarked that this case is an unsoothing illustration of, how litigations are pursued on behalf of the State (HPSC), in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion and that the proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance & judicial propriety.

“Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system. This tendency can be curbed only if the Courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such comportment. The imposition of costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct. Ergo, this Court deems it appropriate to saddle HPSC with costs, which indubitably ought to be veritable and real time in nature”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned Order, and directed HPSC to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Petitioner and Rs. 1 lakh in favour of Poor Patient’s Welfare Fund PGIMER, Chandigarh within two weeks.

Cause Title- Divya Kalia v. State of Haryana and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:037668-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anand Chhibbar, Advocates Shreya B. Sarin, and Himanshu Malik.

Respondents: AAG Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocates Sukhdeep Singh Chhatwal, Ajaivir Singh, and Balvinder Singh Sangwan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment