Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manmohan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 July, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M)
and connected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M)
Manmohan Singh and others
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
2. CWP no. 22895 of 2011 (O&M)
Balwant Singh and others
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
Date of Decision : 25.07.2013
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. Navjeet Singh Malmajra, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP no. 22684 of 2011
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP no. 22895 of 2011
Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab
Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for Bank
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This order will dispose of abovesaid two writ petitions bearing CWP nos. 22684 and 22895 of 2011.
These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioners pray for quashing of the public notice dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) vide which they have impliedly been excluded from the process of selection by prescribing a condition regarding eligibility which is extracted herebelow:-
Rekha Sihag2013.08.06 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case 2 "The eligibility for the said posts are as follows:-
1)Graduate (IInd Division) (any stream) or Post Graduation pass (any stream)
2)Diploma Certificate (Minimum 6 months) in computer from an institute having ISO Certification.
3)Should have passed Punjabi language examination of Matriculation standard.
4) Should be domicile of Punjab."
All the petitioners had applied for the post of Junior Clerks/Junior Clerk-cum-Typists in response to an advertisement which was given in the newspaper on 24.5.1996.
The petitioners were selected but with the change of the government at the State level the appointment letters were not issued as a result of which CWP no. 6056 of 1997 was preferred by the petitioners and others similarly situated persons wherein directions were issued to respondent - Bank to recruit the petitioners and other similarly situated persons on the basis of the result in which they were successful.
Aggrieved by this decision of this Court, the respondent - Bank went up in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal no. 3729-3730 of 1999. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter and gave the following directions:-
"2. Further action shall be taken by the appellant Bank:-
(a) issue fresh public notice/ advertisement in newspapers disclosing the vacancy position and invite Rekha Sihag 2013.08.06 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case 3 applications.
(b) conduct a common/combined test and interview for all candidates who already applied without insisting upon any fresh application from them and as if they also applied along with those who respond now pursuant to the fresh advertisements by making applications, and prepare a select list for appointment following the guidelines or orders in force and binding in respect of such selections;
(c ) Relax the requirement of age, if need be, to those who already applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement
- whether found selected in the earlier selection or not; and
(d) If anyone appointed pursuant to the orders of the High Court dated 22.10.97 which orders have been now set aside is holding officer they will be considered to be ad hoc appointees to hold position with no right for any priority or preference or for any claim permanence, subject to the results of the fresh selections to be made and till such time as the new selections and appointments are made, yielding place to such newly selected/appointed persons.
The appeals, therefore, shall stand allowed subject to the above directions. No costs.
Sd/-
(S.Rajendra Babu)
New Delhi Sd/-
August 19, 2003 (Doraiswamy Raju)"
Despite the aforesaid directions having been given in the year 2003 the respondents did not fill up the posts and eventually on 15.6.2011 Rekha Sihag 2013.08.06 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case 4 gave out an advertisement to fill the posts of Clerks-cum- Data Entry Operators . This nomenclature came into existence on the strength of rules which have now been introduced doing away with the posts of Junior Clerks and Junior Clerks-cum-Typists against which the petitioners had applied in the year 1996 and had successfully faced the selection process.
The grievance of the petitioners is that with the insistence of the eligibility clause they have been excluded from the zone of consideration altogether and therefore rights which were protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of its directions given in Civil Appeal no. 3729-3730 of 1999 have been defeated which is evident further from the notice issued to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2011 and ostensibly as a measure of compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been specifically said in the notice issued to these selected candidates of 1996 that they can apply and participate in the selection process only if they were eligible for the post of Clerk-cum-Data Operator. Annexure P-3 appended to the CWP no. 22684 of 2011 bares out this exclusion of the petitioners.
It is with this grievance that the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that this insistence on the fresh eligibility conditions which debars them from the process of selection altogether be quashed and the petitioners be permitted to participate in the process of selection as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The respondents have justified their stand to state that as per the rules prevailing they have no option but to insist upon the eligibility conditions prescribed therein and if the petitioners do not fulfill the requisite qualifications they obviously cannot be considered for Rekha Sihag 2013.08.06 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case 5 employment.
Interestingly the respondent - Bank moved an application in the year 2011 itself seeking specific clarificatory directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the earlier directions given in Civil Appeal no.3729-3730 of 1999 decided in the year 2003. The directions sought are extracted herebelow:-
"DIRECTIONS SOUGHT FROM THIS HON'BLE
COURT
16.That the applicant Bank by way of the present application, seeks further direction to the effect that the advertisement/ public notice issued in the year 1996, had invited "Junior Clerk-cum-Typist" whereas in the present public notice for recruitment issued in 2011, the requirement has changed from the "Typist to "Data Entry Operators", in view of the fact that all District Cooperative Banks, have been computerized and therefore, the need for knowledge of computer applications has become necessary. In view of the changed circumstances, in the fresh recruitment 92011) the posts have been re-defined as "Junior Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operators." In order to appreciate the changed conditions of recruitment between the two advertisements vis-a-vis the qualification issued in the year 1996 and 2011, the Applicant Bank submits the following chart:-
1996 2011
(i) Graduation Graduation with second division or
Rekha Sihag
2013.08.06 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M)
and connected case 6
Post Graduation (Pass) any
stream.
(ii)Typewriting speed Diploma/Certificate
minimum 30 w.p.m (minimum 6 months)
in English of Punjabi in computers from
an institute having ISO
certificate
(iii) No condition of Should be domicile
domicile of Punjab.
(iv) Weightage will be given to
higher qualification and rural
students.
17. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant Bank prays for directions to hold the recruitment for the post of "Junior Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operators" as advertised in the new advertisement dated 15.6.2011, by holding a common/combined written test for those candidates who apply in pursuance to the fresh advertisement, and also for those candidates who had applied in pursuance the advertisement issued in the year 1996. The candidates (1565) would be given relaxation of age, if need be, and they need not further apply afresh for the new selection process in terms of the directions given by this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) Allow the applicant Bank, to conduct a common/ combined test and interview for all candidates, who had already applied in the year 1996 without insisting upon Rekha Sihag 2013.08.06 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case 7 fresh application, alongwith those who have applied now in 2011, as per the terms and conditions of recruitment as advertised on 15.6.2011; and
(b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The aforesaid application was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing "that the prayer made in the application cannot be granted because that would run contrary to the directions given by this Court. The applications are accordingly dismissed."
Evidently the respondent - Bank after the dismissal of their application had no option but to permit the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to participate in the process which, however, was not done.
During the pendency of the instant writ petition, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent - Bank that the process of selection has been completed, appointment letters issued and some of the incumbents have also completed their probation period while the others are in the process of doing so.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that gross injustice has been done to the petitioners by the respondent - Bank .
Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed in the year 2003 that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were to be considered in the process of selection to be undertaken at a subsequent stage the respondent initially defeated the rights of the petitioners by not initiating the process for as long as 8 years and then when the process was initiated Rekha Sihag 2013.08.06 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case 8 they imposed a condition which had the impact of excluding the petitioners from consideration altogether. Besides the application moved by the respondent - Bank before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also stood declined and therefore, the respondents had no option but to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in the year 2003 and consequently ought to have included the petitioners in the process of selection. But that was not done. The dishonesty of the Bank is writ large on the face of it as this fact of approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of application has cleverly been concealed by them by filing their reply and it is only on the basis of counter affidavit filed by the petitioners that this fact has surfaced.
Evidently the approach of the respondent - Bank right since the selection process was concluded in favour of the petitioners in the year 1996 has been to scuttle their legitimate rights on one pretext or the other.
The Court is now confronted with a situation where it finds that the respondents have adopted an unjustified stand towards the petitioners but still is unable to grant the prayer of the petitioners considering the fact that the selection process is over and the appointments made. The petitioners had not cared to amend the petition and incorporate such a challenge to the selection and have also not impleaded the selected candidates as party respondent. Any directions given in favour of the petitioners at this stage if taken to its logical end would naturally result in dislodging some of the selected candidates i.e in the eventuality of the petitioners being held eligible for selection.
Faced with this impediment, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petitions with the prayers as existing today have been rendered Rekha Sihag 2013.08.06 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 22684 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case 9 illusory on account of the action of the respondents and with the efflux of time and partially on account of the inaction on the part of the petitioners themselves.
Consequently, petitions are dismissed but at the same time to settle the equities this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners have been unjustly denied their legitimate claim of consideration and appointment on account of unjustified action on the part of the respondents each petitioner is held entitled to compensatory costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by respondents within a period of two months from today.
July 25, 2013 (Mahesh Grover)
rekha Judge
Rekha Sihag
2013.08.06 12:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh