Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunny Duggal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 8 October, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 7780 of 2019 Date of Decision: 8.10.2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Sunny Duggal ...... Petitioner
Versus
[
State of Himachal Pradesh and others. .......Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for report?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, Advocate, through video-conferencing For the Respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Kunal Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State, through video-conferencing.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2, through video-
conferencing.
Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3, through video-
conferencing Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4, through video-
conferencing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Principal, Industrial Training ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP 2 Institute (Annexure A-5), petitioner approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No.3308 of 2016, which now stands transferred to this Court and .
re-registered as CWPOA No.7780 of 2019, praying therein following reliefs:-
(i) That the recommendation and selection of the respondent No.4 to the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute vide Annexure A-5 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(ii) That the respondents be directed to select and recommend the name of applicant for the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute, in view of his r being next in merit list of general category candidate.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that respondent No.2 by way of advertisement No.9/2014, dated 12.3.2015 (Annexure A-2), advertised 42 posts of Principals, ITI.
Out of 42 posts, 21 posts were kept for general category, whereas remaining 21 posts were kept for other reserved categories. In terms of aforesaid advertisement, essential qualification as prescribed for the post in question was that the candidate should have a Bachelor Degree of any branch of engineering or its equivalent from a recognized University with at least three years ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP 3 experience in reputed industrial concern or in a training institute.
Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement applied to the post of Principal, .
Industrial Training Institute, however fact remains that respondent No.4 being more meritorious came to be selected against the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute, as a consequence of which, name of the petitioner alongwith 38 other successful candidates was recommended by respondent No.2, H.P. Public Service Commission to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for appointment to the post concerned.
3. After selection of respondent No.4, petitioner applied certain information under Right to Information Act from respondent No.3, Himachal Pradesh Technical University, with regard to qualification and experience possessed by respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 vide communication dated 5.7.2016 (Annexure A-6) made available information with regard to qualification possessed by respondent No.4. As per information given by respondent No.3 under RTI, respondent No.4 besides having B.Tech Degree also possesses M.Tech Degree.
4. Precise grievance of the petitioner as has been raised in the instant petition is that since respondent No.4 was pursuing ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP 4 his M.Tech Degree as regular student in the year 2011 to 2013, as is evident from the information given to the petitioner under Right to Information Act by respondent No.3, how he could serve .
private institutes i.e. M.G. Institute of Engineering and Technology, Badhoo, District Mandi and Mechanical Engineering Department at Shiva Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P, as lecturer during this period that too on regular basis and as such, experience certificates consideration r by to issued by those institutes could not have been taken into respondent No.2 while considering the candidature of respondent No.4 for the post in question being not genuine. Perusal of experience certificates (Annexure R-4/3 and Annexure R-4/5-B) annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.4, clearly reveals that respondent No.4 while pursuing his M. Tech Degree as regular student was also serving as lecturer in the aforesaid private institutes, who have given experience certificates to the effect that respondent No.4 was rendering his services as lecturer in the institutes with effect from 2.8.2010 to 24.12.2011 and 1.8.2012 to 7.4.2016, respectively. Having taken note of aforesaid facts, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions made by learned counsel representing the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP 5 that once respondent No.4 was pursuing his M.Tech Degree as regular student in the year, 2011 to 2013, how he could serve private institutes as lecturer during that period and as such, .
matter needs to be investigated/verified.
5. Though, as per advertisement, it is only degree of B.Tech which is/was required to be taken into consideration while determining the eligibility of petitioner and respondent No.4, but since experience certificates annexed by respondent No.4 alongwith the application pertains to the years while he was pursuing his M. Tech Degree as regular student, same could not be taken into consideration by respondent No.2 while considering the candidature of respondent No.4 against the post in question.
6. Though, Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.4 while inviting attention of this Court to the bank statements placed on record (Annexure R-4/4 colly) made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that bare perusal of account statements clearly reveal that during the period mentioned in the experience certificate respondent No.4 rendered his services as Lecturer in the colleges, who issued experience certificate in favour of respondent No.4 and as such, experience certificate being genuine ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP 6 have been rightly taken into consideration by respondent No.2 while considering his candidature for the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute, but having taken note of the fact .
that during aforesaid period, respondent No.4 was pursuing his M.Tech Degree as regular student, aforesaid plea made by learned senior counsel representing respondent No.4, is not sustainable.
7. Learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently argued that since petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings after having participated in the selection process, it is not upon for him to lay challenge to the procedure adopted by the authorities while conducting selection process, but such plea of them deserve to be rejected in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
8. True, it is that petitioner has approached this Court after having participated in the selection process, but by way of instant petition he has not laid challenge to the conditions, if any, contained in the advertisement or procedure followed by the Selection Board, rather he after having received information under RTI that respondent No.4 was pursing his M.Tech Degree as regular student during the period qua which he has been ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP 7 shown to be working as lecturer in private institutes , has approached this Court to issue appropriate directions to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps for ascertaining the .
factual position and as such, it cannot be said that present petition is not maintainable. Factum with regard M.Tech Degree pursued by respondent No.4 as regular student during the period qua which experience certificates have been issued in his favour by private institutes stands duly admitted in the reply filed by respondent No.4 investigation.
r and
as such, matter requires further
9. Since, complaint made in this regard by the petitioner to respondent No.2 was not paid any heed, he was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. However, this Court is of the view that since, aforesaid facts were not in the knowledge of respondent No.2 at the time of selection of respondent No.4, it would not be fair for this Court to quash the selection process of respondent No.4 in the instant proceedings, rather it is duty of respondent No.2 to verify the facts and to take appropriate action in the matter.
10. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents No.1 and ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP 8 2 to verify the factual position and in case allegations, as contained in the petition at hand, are found to be correct, consequences may follow. Needless to say, respondents No.1 and .
2 while taking decision in the case shall not be influenced by the findings/observations, if any, returned by this Court in the instant judgment, rather they would pass appropriate orders after ascertaining the factual position by associating the petitioner as well as respondent No.4.
11. Needful shall be done by respondents No.1 and 2, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma)
8th October, 2020 Judge
(shankar)
::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2020 20:17:49 :::HCHP