Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 July, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082159
CWP No. 14463 of 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(220) CWP No. 14463 of 2021
Date of Decision : 03.07.2024
Surjit Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioners is that though they were higher in merit but the private respondents No. 4 to 9 who are lower in merit, have been given appointment to the post of Head Teacher.
2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.
3. Vide advertisement dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-1), 375 posts of Central Head Teacher and 1558 posts of Head Teacher were advertised. The petitioners being eligible, applied for the post of Head Teacher in the reserved category of SC (R&O). The petitioners appeared in the written examination and they secured 121, 119 and 104 marks 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 06:48:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082159 CWP No. 14463 of 2021 2 respectively. The petitioners were called for the scrutiny of documents but keeping in view the number of posts advertised and the merit position of the petitioners, their documents could not be scrutinized as all the posts were filled up before merit could reach petitioners for consideration of their cases.
4. Thereafter, certain candidates who were selected, did not join. In order to fill the said posts, the respondents issued notice on the website calling the candidates of Vimukat Jati to fill up those vacant posts. The petitioners were entitled to appear for the scrutiny of their documents but they missed the said notice and could not appear for the scrutiny of documents and the candidates who appeared for the scrutiny including the private respondents were considered and the remaining vacant posts in the reserved category of Vimukat Jati were filled up as per the merit from the candidates who appeared for scrutiny of documents.
5. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that as the private respondents are lower in merit, the petitioners are also entitled to be appointed.
6. After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply stating that in order to fill up the vacant advertised posts, a notice was published on the website on 09.10.2019 calling the candidates for scrutiny of documents on 11.10.2019 and all the candidates, who appeared for scrutiny were considered and the posts were filled up as per the merit and as the petitioners did not come for scrutiny of their documents, they could 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 06:48:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082159 CWP No. 14463 of 2021 3 not be considered for selection and consequent appointment and hence, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance in this regard.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
8. The first grievance being raised by the petitioners is that the notice for calling the reserved category candidate for scrutiny of documents was issued on 09.10.2019 was not published in any newspaper and no information was given to the petitioners and the notice calling the candidates for scrutiny was only published in the website and as the petitioners are living in the rural area, they missed the said notice, hence, the claim of the petitioners is liable to be considered once again, especially when the candidates lower in merit have been granted selection and the consequent appointment. The said arguments needs to be viewed from various angles.
9. It is a conceded fact that all the information qua the selection was being done on the website. The result of the petitioners of the written examination was declared on the website, which concededly came to the knowledge of the petitioners. For the first scrutiny which was undertaken, the date was published in the website, in pursuance to which the petitioners appeared for the first scrutiny but could not get the benefit of scrutinization of their documents on the ground that all the posts were filled up before the merit position of the petitioners could reach. Under these facts, the petitioners cannot be allowed to contend that the process 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 06:48:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082159 CWP No. 14463 of 2021 4 undertaken to issue the notice dated 09.10.2019 on the website causes any prejudice to the petitioners qua the selection to the posts of Head Teacher.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that the notice was short and hence, the right to appear before the scrutiny Committee has been taken away. It may be noticed that the petitioners have averred that they missed the notice dated 09.10.2019 keeping in view the fact that they were living in the rural area. Once, the said stand has been taken, duration of the notice does not cause any prejudice. It is not the case of the petitioners that despite reading the notice, they could not appear before the scrutiny Committee within the time frame prescribed in the said notice, hence, the said arguments cannot be accepted to redress the grievance of the petitioners.
11. Further, the similarly situated candidates as the petitioners appeared for scrutiny and got selected keeping in view their merit position. The petitioners cannot demand a different criteria to be adopted for them for a selection process. On the basis of the same notice published on 09.10.2019, the candidates appeared for scrutiny, hence, as the petitioners missed the bus, the petitioners cannot be allowed to contend that the process adopted to fill up the posts from the reserved category of Vimukat Jati was faulted in any manner. The petitioners should have remained vigilant in order to pursue their claim for the posts in question, which concededly they failed.
12. Once, all the posts have been filled up in accordance with law and the petitioners did not appear for the scrutiny of documents 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 06:48:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082159 CWP No. 14463 of 2021 5 despite notice on the website, selection and appointment of the candidates lower in merit cannot be termed arbitrary and illegal.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned here- in-before, no ground is made out to any interference by this Court in the present petition.
14. Dismissed.
July 03, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2024 06:48:18 :::