Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mittar Sain & Others vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd; & ... on 29 November, 2016
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 23864 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 23864 of 2016
Date of decision: 29.11.2016
Mittar Sain & ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & anr. ... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
From the table made in para 22 of the petition, Ms. Chatrath argues that the petitioners are higher in merit than many candidates who have been offered appointment as Assistant Linesman in August, 2016 in the respondent-Nigam. The petitioners have been selected at merit No.98, 273 and 263 respectively and the candidates namely Kani Ram, Sunil Kumar, Sukhbir, Naveen Sheokand & Sunil Kumar, who were selected in the waiting list at merit No.221, 247, 259, 261 and 271 respectively belonging to General Category have already been appointed.
When asked how this has happened, Ms. Chatrath submits that in cases of the present kind that the respondent-Nigam offers appointment when directed by the Court. This is a rather interesting way of settling rights of candidates who are higher in merit in the category.
If this is the position then there is no need to issue summons and put the Nigam to notice only to perpetuate a bad habit formed in the Nigam to go by Court orders alone with no sanctity attached to merit in the selection process.
In the circumstances, Ms. Chatrath's contentions appear to be 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2016 04:17:37 ::: CWP No. 23864 of 2016 -2- weighty that the petitioners' demand notice dated October 10, 2016 (P-18) deserves to be paid attention to by the authorities in the Nigam.
Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to take up the demand notice forthwith, examine the case of above-said selected candidates as against the case of the petitioners and accord them parity of treatment according to their merit position. Let this exercise be completed within a fortnight and in case, the petitioners deserve appointment according to their merit position in the category applied for then they would be offered consideration for appointment within the next three weeks after completing the formalities.
With these observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE
29.11.2016
monika
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 03-12-2016 04:17:38 :::