Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs General Manager on 9 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17958 of 2012
Date of decision: 9th October, 2012
Sandeep Kumar
Petitioner
Versus
General Manager, Haryana Gramin Bank and another
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
As per the averments made in this writ petition, the respondents invited applications for the post of Office Attendant (Multipurpose). The said advertisement was issued by the respondents under Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the said post.
As per the further averments, on 30th January, 2012 the petitioner received interview letter issued by the respondents to him for the said post. The date of interview was fixed for 15th February, 2012. The petitioner received another interview letter for the said post for 17th February, 2012. It has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that he had not sent any second application for the post in question and had also not appeared in the second interview which was to be held on 17th February, 2012.
It is the further case of the petitioner that result of the interview was declared on 6th March, 2012 and in the result the petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No.17958 of 2012 2 selected for appointment as Office Attendant (Multipurpose). The petitioner was further issued a joining letter dated 12th March, 2012 advising him to report at the Head Office, Hisar on 19th March, 2012. The petitioner went to join his duty to the post of Office Attendant (Multipurpose) on the said date however, he was not allowed to join on the ground that it had transpired from the record that his candidature was forwarded by two Employment Exchanges i.e. Sub-Divisional Employment Office, Tohana and Divisional Employment Office, Hisar separately and his candidature/eligibility was under scrutiny, and therefore, his appointment was kept in abeyance.
Further, the respondents vide letter (Annexure P-5) conveyed the petitioner that since he had got forwarded his candidature from two Employment Exchanges and had concealed this fact at the time of his interview, his offer of appointment was cancelled.
Challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as the documents placed on record of this case.
It is the contention of the petitioner that since he has not appeared second time in the interview on the basis of second interview letter, therefore it will not make any difference as he has already been selected and he cannot be denied appointment on such a ground.
The argument raised is misconceived. Admittedly, the vacancies were notified under the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and thus, the names of candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and in furtherance of that the candidates were called for interview. It could not be disputed that under Civil Writ Petition No.17958 of 2012 3 the provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, the petitioner could have got himself registered only with one such Employment Exchange and violation of such rule attracts penalty.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has got registered himself at two Employment Exchanges, which is against the rules. No explanation is forthcoming in this regard on behalf of the petitioner. A simple argument has been raised on the basis of Annexure P-6 to state that name of the petitioner has been struck off from the Employment Exchange of Hisar vide order dated 12th April, 2012. The aforesaid fact is of no help to the petitioner as the same has been done at his asking and after the factum of registration of his name at two Employment Exchanges had come to the notice of the respondent-authorities.
In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in favour of a person who has not come with clean hand to this Court.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE October 9, 2012 rps