Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner qualified in M.A. (Final) English Examination in May, 2002. In November, 2009, she appeared in M.A. (Final) History Examination conducted by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. Result was declared on 17.5.2010 and the Petitioner secured 56.1% marks.Respondent -Haryana Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement on 28.10.2009 inviting applications for different categories of posts, including the post of Lecturer in History. Total 15 posts were so advertised. The essential qualification was Postgraduate degree with 55% marks. On 28.1.2010, Commission issued a corrigendum inviting applications by 23.2.2010 as the posts had been increased. The Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History. Commission issued yet another corrigendum on 26.7.2011 making those candidates who had registered Ph.D. on or before 31.5.2009 to be eligible even if they had not qualified in NET SLET examination. The Petitioner applied for appointment after clearly intimating that she has not passed M.A.degree on 23.2.2010, but had appeared in the examination. The Petitioner's candidature was considered and ultimately has been rejected on the ground that she was not having essential qualification by the last date, i.e., 23.2.2010. The Petitioner accordingly has filed this writ petition raising number of grounds to challenge this action of the Respondent -Commission.
(2.) FIRST submission is that the Petitioner did not conceal anything from the Commission. The counsel then submits that the examination was held in November, 2009, but the result was declared in May, 2010. On this basis, it is pleaded that the Petitioner should be deemed to have passed the examination during session 2007 -2009 and delay in declaration of result should not prejudice the case of the Petitioner. Submission also is that the exemption granted to those candidates, who had registered for Ph.D., should equally apply to those who are enrolled in M.A. and this would make the Petitioner eligible for consideration for appointment. I am not inclined to accept the line of submissions as made by the counsel for the Petitioner. M.A. is the basic eligibility qualification, whereas the exemption from SLET or NET can not be equated with essential qualification. Even earlier, exemption was available to those candidates from requirement of passing SLET or NET, if they had done Ph.D. Now this exemption is extended to those who are registered for Ph.D. on or before 31.5.2009. These two situations cannot be equated. Since the Petitioner was lacking in basic qualification by the cut off date, she certainly cannot be held eligible for submitting an application for appointment. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed.;