Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yashbir And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 August, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2012
Date of decision: 23rd August, 2012
Yashbir and others
Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula advertised 1000 posts of Assistant Linemen vide advertisement No.01/2011 dated 19.3.2011 (Annexure P-1). Later on through Corrigendum dated 7.4.2011 and 1.7.2011 the aforesaid posts of Assistant Linemen were enhanced to 4131 posts, for Uttar Haryana and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited.
The petitioners who are stated to be duly qualified for the aforesaid posts of Assistant Lineman applied in response to the said advertisement. The respondent-Commission decided to shortlist the candidates for interview on the basis of their academic qualification vide notice dated 12.4.2012 attached as Annexure P-3 with this writ petition. Even the call letters were issued to such short-listed candidates by the Commission. Since the petitioners did not receive call letters as their names do not figure in the shortlisted candidates, they have filed the instant writ petition challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents.
In this petition, the action of respondent-Authorities of shortlisting the candidates on the basis of their academic qualification (Annexure P-3) is under challenge. In support of their case, it has been submitted before this Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2012 2 Court that normally in all the appointments of different posts, the Appointing Authorities are conducting written test for shortlisting the candidates. Even on earlier occasions, the respondent-Commission had adopted the procedure of written test for shortlisting the candidates, but this time for the post of Assistant Lineman, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula, has adopted a new policy of shortlisting the candidates on the basis of academic qualification without mentioning the same in the advertisement. It has been further stated that the act of the Commission is in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. It has been stated that in the advertisement, the Commission has mentioned that it may short-list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination and thus, the action of the Commission is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also relied upon a judgment dated 18.2.1997 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.11947 of 1996 titled as 'Kali Charan & others v. HSE Board and others'.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the various documents placed on record of the writ petition as well as the impugned notice (Annexure P-3) and the judgment rendered in Kali Charan's case (supra).
It is relevant to refer to the special instructions as referred to in the advertisement Annexure P-1 which reads thus:
"The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of, and criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this regard."Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2012 3
The aforesaid special instructions, as mentioned in the advertisement itself, falsify the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as alleged in the writ petition. It has been categorically stated in the advertisement that the Commission may short-list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further failed to show any legal bar against the respondents for switching over to shortlisting of candidates on the basis of academic qualification instead of written examination.
It has been further vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that a huge number of ineligible candidates who have been considered and called for the interview, though as per the eligibility fixed in the advertisement they are not even entitled to apply for the said post and if they are deleted from the number of eligible candidates, the percentage criteria will change and come down so the petitioners having lesser percentage of marks than the cut-off as fixed, shall also be entitled to be considered.
It may be noticed at this stage that CWP No. 12487 of 2012 titled as 'Neeraj Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another' challenging the impugned selection process on almost similar grounds has already been dismissed by this Court on July 06, 2012.
The argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is liable to be rejected as in CWP No.12487 of 2012, the respondent-Haryana Staff Selection Commission had undertaken that even if an ineligible candidate has been called for the interview, he shall not be selected. The further argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that in such an eventuality, thousands of applicants are to be excluded and therefore, they will be entitled to be called for the interview as the cut-off percentage will come down, is merely on the basis of suppositions as no factual data has been laid down in the writ petition Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2012 4 to raise such an argument and thus, this Court is not inclined to accept the same.
It may also be noticed at this stage that no worthwhile argument has been raised to challenge the minimum cut-off percentage for each category. It is not the case of the petitioners that any candidate having lesser marks than the petitioners has been called for the interview.
It may also be relevant to mention that total number of 4131 posts of Assistant Linemen have been advertised and thus, it cannot be disputed that there may be thousands of candidates who have applied for the said posts and therefore, no exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by the respondents. The judgment dated 18.2.1997 rendered in Kali Charan's case (supra) does not in any manner bar the respondent-Authorities to adopt such a procedure as done in the instant case.
In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the procedure adopted by the respondent-Authorities to shortlist the candidates.
Thus, there is no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE August 23, 2012 rps