Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Grover vs State Of Punjab & Others --Respondents on 2 December, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 22692 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 2.12.2013.
Ajay Grover --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent no.3.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J The Punjab Information & Communication Technology Education Society issued advertisement dated 3.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications online for recruitment of 700 posts of Computer Faculty Teachers. The last date for submission of online application forms was 31.12.2011 and the applications could be filled up only online. The eligibility conditions in regard to educational qualifications as also age limit were prescribed in the advertisement itself. The recruitment was to be based on the merit determined in a written test to be held. There were no marks assigned for the interview as also academic qualifications. However, candidates, who secured sufficient merit in the written test were to be called for a process of counselling which was for the purpose of verifying original documents as regards qualifications, age, category etc. The petitioner, who belongs to the Dependent Ex-Service Man category submitted his application online within the stipulated time period. Being eligible in the light of educational qualifications held as also the age Lucky 2013.12.04 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP No. 22692 of 2013 (O&M) -2- limit prescribed, petitioner was permitted to participate in the written test that was held on 18.3.2012 and in which he secured 31.25 marks. The first counselling process took place between 28.9.2012 to 30.9.2012. However, the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the first counselling exercise on account of the merit position secured.
Challenge in the instant writ petition is to an order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure P-7), whereby claim of the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Computer Faculty under the Dependent Ex- Service Man Category, has been rejected on the ground that he had not appeared in the second counselling held on 11.3.2013.
The petition was initially taken up for preliminary hearing on 10.10.2013 and the counsel for petitioner had vehemently contended that the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected on the non-existent grounds i.e. having not participated in the second process of counselling. Counsel had argued that the date of such second counselling had not been duly notified to the candidates and even information in regard thereto had not been posted on the official website. At that stage, counsel had raised a further argument that even if a notice had been issued, reasonable time had not been afforded. Accordingly, notice of motion had been issued on such limited submission raised by learned counsel.
A short reply on behalf of contesting respondent no.3 along with Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/4 has been placed on record.
In the reply a categoric stand has been taken that not only was the requisite information uploaded on the website but also public notices were issued on 1.3.2013 in four different newspapers i.e. Jag Bani, Punjab Kesri, Daily Ajeet and Hindustan Times informing the candidates as regards CWP No. 22692 of 2013 (O&M) -3- the second counselling process to be held from 9.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M between 11.3.2013 to 13.3.2013. Such factual assertion has not met with any rebuttal from the petitioner in terms of a rejoinder/replication having been filed.
In the light of the notice of motion order dated 10.10.2013, whereby counsel for the petitioner had been forewarned that in the eventuality of the assertion as regards a public notice having not been issued being found to be factually incorrect, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed, nothing further survives.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has raised some additional arguments today during the course of arguments and which I deem appropriate to deal with.
Counsel would refer to the advertisement at Annexure P-1 and would argue that the recruitment was to be based solely on the merit of the written test and there was no weightage for academic qualifications and no marks had been assigned for the interview. Counsel would further refer to the general instructions contained in the advertisement wherein it was stipulated that the counselling process was confined only to the purpose of verification of original documents and which could be done at the time of counselling/joining. Counsel would, accordingly, contend that the petitioner having secured a higher merit position could have been issued an appointment letter and the verification of the original documents could have been done even at the stage of joining. Case set up on behalf of the petitioner is that mere absence from counselling cannot entail the rights of a meritorious candidate being sacrificed. Towards such assertion, counsel would even place reliance upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court CWP No. 22692 of 2013 (O&M) -4- rendered in case of Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others, 2012 (3) S.C.T. 457. That apart, counsel would submit that even in the light of the public notices placed on record at Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/4 only 10 days time had been granted and which was grossly insufficient and was not reasonable. Counsel would also contend that the entire exercise is only to ensure that candidates possessing a lower merit position are adjusted and thereby to facilitate a backdoor entry into service. Yet, another submission raised is that in the original advertisement at Annexure P-1 there was no schedule given out as regards the various stages of counselling as also dates on which such counselling processes were to be conducted. As such, public notices at Annexures R- 3/1 to R-3/4 are stated to be in the nature of a surprise having been sprung upon the candidates.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant writ petition.
The petitioner has, admittedly, secured 31.25 marks in the written test. As per such merit position secured, he was not eligible to participate in the counselling process which had been conducted between 28.9.2012 to 30.9.2012. No exception can be taken to the action of the respondent-authorities in having resorted to the conduct of a second counselling process so as to ensure the filling up of the vacant posts that were originally advertised as per Annexure P-1. To conduct such second counselling process, information was duly uploaded on the website and public notices in four different dailies were also published on 1.3.2013. This was a notice across the board and to all the candidates including the petitioner. The dates duly notified as regards a counselling process have to CWP No. 22692 of 2013 (O&M) -5- be held sacrosanct. A recruitment process cannot be left open ended and these matters have to attain finality. No fault can be attributed to the respondents in such a situation, whereby a candidate inspite of having been put to notice does not appear in a counselling process. The obvious consequence that is to flow, is that a candidate who may be having inferior merit position, would, then be accommodated. This is precisely what has happened in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 would apprise the Court that in the Ex-service Man category a total of 49 posts had been reserved and which all stand filled up.
The vernacular of Annexure P-3 has been placed on record by the petitioner himself, contains categoric stipulations to the effect that candidates who do not come present in the second counselling process would forfeit their right as regards appointment and the candidate next in order of merit would, then, be given the offer of appointment.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has also furnished today in Court a tabulation with regard to the number of candidates who came present during the second process of counselling from 11.3.2013 to 13.3.2013. Against a total of 872 candidates called, 413 candidates actually attended the process of counselling. As per learned counsel for the petitioner such number is insufficient and is a pointer towards the fact that the notice period of 10 days was deficient. I find such submission to be without merit. Almost 50% of the candidates called have attended the counselling. It would also have to be taken into account that candidates may have applied in pursuance to some other recruitment processes and this was an opportunity with regard to a second process of counselling. In any case, it is only the petitioner who has come forth to raise such a plea as regards CWP No. 22692 of 2013 (O&M) -6- public notice having not been issued/insufficient time having been granted. The grievance is without merit.
Even the reliance placed upon the case of Asha (supra) on behalf of the petitioner is totally misplaced. In that case the issue was with regard to admission to M.B.B.S Course and in which in the second counselling the candidate concerned had to come present at 8.00 A.M on the notified date. However, the notification as regards the second counselling had not specified the exact time when the candidate of each category i.e. General, S.C., F.F etc. were to be present. It had been clearly noticed that on a factual basis the candidate had come present on the relevant date and at 8.00 A.M itself but her absence at the crucial time of counselling could not stand in her way to secure admission to the M.B.B.S Course in the light of her merit position. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Herein the fault, if any, is totally attributable to the petitioner and not to the respondent-authorities.
In view of the reasons recorded above and coupled with the fact that all the 49 posts reserved for the category to which the petitioner belongs, already stand filled up, no interference is called for.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE December 02, 2013.
lucky