Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishana Devi & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 2 July, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.14521 of 2007 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: July 02, 2009
Krishana Devi & others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.5 and 7.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.14521 of 2007 (Krishana Devi & others Vs. State of Haryana & others) and 14756 of 2007 (Seema Rani Vs. State of Haryana & others). The facts are being taken from CWP No.14521 of 2007.
300 posts of Lady Constables in general duty were advertisement for appointment in the State. Four Centres of selection Civil Writ Petition No.14521 of 2007 :2: were ear-marked, which were Ambala, Bhiwani, Rohtak and Faridabad. 30.6.2006 was fixed for Physical measurement. The physical trials were held on 16.7.2006. The result of selection was published on 16.1.2007 in the Newspaper, copy of which is annexed at Annexure P-3. The petitioners' names did not figure in the list of selected candidates. The petitioners statedly filed representations before respondent Nos.1,2 and 4 alleging certain illegalities and irregularities committed during the process of selection. Copy of one such representation is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4. Petitioner No.1 also applied for obtaining details of marks obtained by Ruchi Dudi (respondent No.5), which were denied to her. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 also applied for obtaining list of selected candidates, which was also not supplied. The petitioners, in this background, have filed these writ petitions to challenge the selection of respondent Nos.5 to 7.
The primary grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.5 Ruchi Dudi has been selected, though she had failed in the physical trial test. As per the petitioners, she has been shown passed in these tests to favour her as she had earlier led the agitation by the candidates selected for appointment in the Haryana State Industrial Security Force, who were terminated after their appointment. It is stated that the matter was subsequently compromised with the State and the agitation was called off by the group which was led by respondent No.5. This, according to the petitioners, was on account of an understanding reached between the State Government and respondent No.5 and accordingly she has been now selected. It is also alleged that respondent No.6 has been Civil Writ Petition No.14521 of 2007 :3: wrongly selected as she belongs to village Sehland, which is a village of the then S.P.Bhiwani. She is daughter of Lal Singh, who is close friend of S.P.Bhiwani and so she has been selected for this connection. As per the petitioners, Seema Rani, respondent No.7, was not physically of fit standard, but still was called for interview and, thus, it is urged that unfit and failed candidates have been called for interview. The averments in this regard have been made in para 8 of the writ petition.
Notice of motion was issued. Replies by the State as well as private respondents No.5 and 7 have been filed. The State has denied the allegations made in the writ petitions. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, the details of marks earned by various petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 7 have been disclosed. The petitioners are stated to be less meritorious as compared to respondent Nos.5 and 7. No details have been provided in respect of respondent No.6 as it is stated that no candidate with the name of Silochna daughter of Lal Singh has been selected in the process of selection. However, it is disclosed that one Suman daughter of Lal Singh has been selected in SC-A category at Registration No.213 in accordance with her position in the merit. She had secured 23 marks and, thus, was selected as per her merit, her marks being more than petitioner Nos.4 and 7, who are from SC-A category. Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 7 has also been filed.
In para 8 of the petition, it is averred that respondent Nos.5 and 7 had failed in the physical test and still selected. These averments have been denied in the replies filed by the State and the private respondents. These averments have been termed as vague, Civil Writ Petition No.14521 of 2007 :4: without any basis and misleading. The averments that the said respondents had failed in the physical trial are specifically denied being absolutely incorrect. It is stated that both the answering respondents (5 and 7) had duly qualified in the physical efficiency test. Rather, it is stated in the reply that the petitioners have failed to give the details in this regard. No replication has been filed to counter this stand taken in the reply filed by the answering respondent Nos.5 and 7. Thus, this factual position has not been controverted by the petitioners.
Though the petitioners did not rebut the stand of respondents taken in their replies, but during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has prayed for viewing the video prepared while conducting the physical fitness test and the physical trial. The petitioners have not laid down any basis for making this enquiry requiring the production of a video, if recorded. Aim seems to be have a fishing enquiry. Except for baldly asserting that the respondents had failed in the physical test, no material is placed on record in this regard. The petitioners did make an averment in this regard and have prayed for summoning the video record, but this has been denied in the reply to which the petitioners did not respond by way of filing replication. Apparently, no need is seen to call for video for viewing and this request is without basis. By pleading so, the petitioners would require this court to go into disputed questions of fact which ordinarily is to be avoided. Faced with this situation, the counsel for the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.14521 volunteered to deposit a sum of Rs.Ten thousand for summoning the video recorded. Since, it was an extraordinary measure, the petitioners Civil Writ Petition No.14521 of 2007 :5: were given option to deposit Rs.50,000/- in case they were keen to summon the video. It was also put to the counsel that the said amount would be refundable if the allegations made in the petitions were found to be true. The counsel appearing in the Writ Petition, after obtaining instructions, expressed his inability to pay this sum, but stated that the petitioners were prepared to deposit sum of Rs.Twenty five thousands. This was put to the counsel appearing in Civil Writ Petition No.14756 of 2007, but he was not prepared to accept the same. This prayer accordingly could not be pursued any further.
It is seen that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction. No case for interference in the writ petitions, thus, is made out.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
July 02, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE