Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpartap Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 27 August, 2014
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M)
Date of Decision:27.08.2014
Gurpartap Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
2. CWP No.9162 of 2014(O&M)
Balwinder Kaur
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present:Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate; and
Mr. Sukhdev Kamboj, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Harpreet Sandhu, Advocate,
for respondents No.4 to 7.
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? NO
2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest? NO
*****
Rajan Kumar
2014.09.03 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [2]
ARUN PALLI, J.
Vide this order, we shall decide two civil writ petitions i.e. CWP No.8839 of 2014, the one facts are being culled out from, and CWP No.9162 of 2014. A writ in the nature of certiorari is being prayed for to quash the order dated 05.05.2014 (Annexure P-7), whereby the appointment of the petitioner, as Assistant Public Relation Officer, has been set aside in purported compliance of the decision dated 30.01.2014, rendered by this Court in CWP No.15645 of 2011. And further to quash order dated 05.05.2014 (Annexure P-8), vide which six Information and Public Relations Officers have been adjusted against the post of Assistant Public Relations Officers as a consequence of said compliance. It is maintained that since the aforesaid decision by this Court does not have any bearing on the selection of Assistant Public Relations Officers, thus, the petitioners, who are serving for the last about three years, be permitted to continue.
What indeed led to this stage, is something, that would be expedient to notice.
Eleven posts of Information and Public Relations Officer and twenty one posts of Assistant Public Relations Officer were advertised by the Information and Public Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [3] Relations Department, Punjab, vide publication in "Ajit" on 11.09.2009. Records reveal that the departmental selection Committee headed by the Chief Minister, Punjab, finalized the criteria for selection to the posts in question, in its meeting held on 12.03.2009. Evidently, it provided marks for qualifications/publications, interview etc. Common advertisement, inviting applications from the eligible candidates, was published on 11.09.2009. Besides the qualifications, experience and other necessary details, it envisaged that candidates will have to appear in the written test that was common for both the posts. Therefore, if a candidate was eligible to compete for both the posts, he indeed could apply for both vide separate applications. Thus, there were three categories of candidates competing in this common process of selection i.e. first, those who had only applied and competed for the post of Information and Public Relations Officer; second, those who had only applied for the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer; and third category consisted of those candidates who had applied and competed for both the posts. It is the last category of candidates, we are concerned with in the present lis. Written test was held on 04.07.2010. As is discernible from the records, post written test, the issue in terms of the policy of the State as regards awarding five extra marks to the Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [4] candidates, who had qualified their Middle and Matriculation Examinations from the schools in rural areas, was raised. Records reveal that in reference to another advertisement issued on 05.09.2007, for recruitment of Teachers, it was emphasized that a provision was made for providing weightage of five extra marks to the candidates from rural areas and the said policy was even approved by the Cabinet. It further recites that such weightage was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.04.2010 in Sudesh Rani v. State of Punjab, 2010(5) SLR 768. Thus, a proposal to provide five extra marks to the candidates in the aforesaid category was made. Since the provision for awarding five extra marks never found formed to be a part of the criteria, an approval of the Chief Minister was solicited. The Chief Minister approved the said proposal on 03.10.2010. Resultantly, the total marks were increased from 100 to 105. Candidates in the aforesaid category were required to produce the relevant certificates at the time of interview, which were held from 06.12.2010 to 08.12.2010. Benefit of five extra marks was awarded to all the candidates in the aforesaid category at the time of preparation of final select list in April, 2011, irrespective of the fact whether he was competing for the post of Information and Public Relations Officer or Assistant Public Relations Officer or both. Followed by appointments in July, 2011. Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [5] Selection and resultant appointments to the post of Information and Public Relations Officer was assailed before this Court, vide CWP No.15645 of 2011, CWP No.15646 of 2011 and CWP No.3825 of 2012.
This Court, vide its judgment dated 30.01.2014, set aside the said selection on the ground that criteria for selection was changed not only after the advertisement had already been issued but after the written test had already been held. Secondly, a Full Bench of this in Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab and others, 2013(3) SCT 1, had declared that the policy of the State to award five extra marks to the candidates in the aforesaid category was ultra vires the Constitution and the judgment of the Division Bench in Sudesh Rani's case (supra), which had affirmed the said policy, was specifically overruled. It would be apposite to make a brief reference to the findings recorded by this Court in this regard and the same read as thus:
"The issue as to whether rules of game, namely, the criteria for selection can be altered after the selection process has commenced has been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on a number of occasions and it has been held that change of rules of game during process or after the game had been played, is clearly impermissible. Reference can be made to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others, Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [6] (2001) 10 SCC 51. In the present case, it is established from the facts on record that the criteria for selection was changed not only after the advertisement had already been issued in terms of the criteria, which had already been finalised, but after the written test had already been held, hence, the selection made on the basis of revised criteria will have to be set aside and the result has to be re-worked out after reducing the extra marks awarded on account of qualification of Middle and Matriculation examination from the schools of rural areas, which was provided for after the selection process had already been started, hence, the selection is bad even on that account.
x x x x x x x In the case in hand, nothing has been pointed out from the judgment of Full Bench in Abhishek Rishi's case (supra) that the judgment will have prospective effect. Still further, the selection in the case had not attained finality but were subject-matter of challenge before the court before the judgment in Abhishek Rishi's case (supra) was pronounced. If the criteria followed for selection is considered in the light of law laid down by this Court, the same has to be set aside as to the selected candidates, marks have been awarded for having qualified Middle and Matriculation examination from rural area schools, which has been declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
Selections cannot be upheld at this stage relying on Division Bench judgment of this court, which has been overruled. A Full Bench of this Court in Aruna Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [7] Luthra's case (supra) clearly provides that the court only declared law. An earlier law declared by the court is simply no law. Hence, even this contention of learned counsel for the private respondents is rejected being misconceived."
Resultantly, the selection of Information and Public Relations Officer was set aside. The final conclusion recorded by this Court reads as thus:
"For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned selections of Information and Public Relations Officer is set aside. The authorities are directed to re-cast the merit list after ignoring five additional marks awarded to the candidates for qualification of Middle and Matriculation examination from the schools in rural areas and offer appointment to the candidates, who fall in the fresh select list as per the vacancies advertised. Necessary exercise be done within a period of three months."
The judgment, dated 30.01.2014, was assailed vide intra-court appeals i.e. LPA Nos.332 and 356 of 2014. We are reminded to point out at this juncture, that these petitions were ordered to be heard with the aforesaid LPAs, however, we thought it appropriate to hear the aforesaid appeals separately and thus those were heard and dismissed by us on 13.08.2014.
The State Government never chose to assail the Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [8] aforesaid judgment and thus, in compliance to the directions issued by this Court, initiated the process to re-cast the merit list after ignoring five additional marks awarded to the candidates in the aforesaid category. And in the process, the petitioners having failed to secure a position for themselves in the revised merit list, their services were terminated. This is what led the petitioners to approach this Court vide the petitions in hand.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s), contends that vide judgment dated 30.01.2014 in CWP No.15645 of 2011, this Court had only set aside the selection of Information and Public Relations Officer. And since the selection to the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer was neither in question nor set aside, thus, the said decision would have no bearing on their selection and resultant appointments. Further, direction was to re-cast the merit list of the Information and Public Relations Officers and, therefore, in the process of carrying out those directions, the authorities could not revise the merit list of the Assistant Public Relations Officers.
In response, learned State counsel and Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned senior counsel appearing for the private Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [9] respondents, contend in unison that decision of this Court dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) did have an effect even on the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers, as benefit of five extra marks was extended to the concerned candidates even in the said merit list and process of selection against both the posts was common. And if on account of deletion of five extra marks a candidate, who was selected and appointed as Information and Public Relations Officer, slips back to his original position in the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers then, a candidate lower in the merit in the said list will have to make a room for him. The State, in its written statement, had further clarified that the candidates, who had secured higher rank on the basis of the marks obtained by them, were selected for the post of Information and Public Relations Officers and the candidates lower in the merit list were selected for the post of Assistant Public Relations Officers. Since in the revised merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers, the position of the petitioner existed at serial No.16 [CWP-8839-2014] and there are only ten posts in the said category, the services of the petitioner was rightly terminated.
On a consideration of the matter in issue and the material on record, we find that the argument being advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) cannot be Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [10] countenanced, as is being demonstrated hereinafter.
Concededly, criteria for selection to both the posts i.e. Information and Public Relations Officer and Assistant Public Relations Officer, was finalized by the departmental selection Committee on 12.03.2009. The said criteria, relevant part whereof is being extracted hereinafter, was comprised of common written test of 75 marks, combined viva-voce of 12 marks and rest of 13 marks were to be awarded for educational qualifications, computer qualifications and additional qualifications/achievements, on the basis of the credential of the candidates:
"Here it is necessary to mention that the following criteria for direct recruitment process to the post of Information and Public Relation Officer and Assistant Public Relation Officer was prescribed by the Departmental Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12.3.2009 (pre-page-20) under the Chairmanship of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister, Punjab:
1. General Knowledge and Multiple Choice questions relating to Punjab 50% marks
2. Drafting of Press Notes in English and Punjabi language and translation of one paragraph from English to Punjabi language 25% marks
3. Minimum Educational Qualifications (5% for Ist Division, 3% for Second Division and 2% for Third Division) 5% marks
4. Computer Knowledge 4% marks
a) Degree holder... 4%
b) Diploma holder...2% Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [11]
5. Additional Professional Qualifications Achievements 4% marks
6. Viva Voce 12% marks"
Vide a common advertisement, published on 11.09.2009, applications were invited from all the eligible candidates. And the same clearly envisaged that "in case any applicant applies for both the above posts, he will have to submit separate application for each of the category with requisite fee." Candidates, who competed for both the posts, were issued a common roll number as the written test as well as interview was common for the purposes of selection. An analysis of the letter (Annexure P-2), vide which the candidates were short-listed and called for interview, substantiates the position in this regard and further shows that the majority of candidates, who were eligible to compete against both the posts, indeed applied for selection against both. It would be apposite to refer to the position as set out in the said letter, which reads as thus:
"Recruitment of Information & Public Relations Officers/Assistant Public Relations Officers.
Reference: Advertisement No.P.R. (01/2009) Published on 10.9.2009.
It is informed that a brief list of roll nos. of following candidates have been made for interview on the basis of the written test conducted on 4.7.2010 in the Punjab University, Chandigarh.Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [12]
Sr. No. Category Roll No. (serial wise) 1 General 4, 11, 13, 25, 43, 53, 67, 82, 118, 119, 120, 132, 136, 145, 149, 175, 231, 236, 238 & 248 Assistant Public Relations Officer:
Sr. No. Category Roll No. (serial wise) 1 General 4, 11, 13, 19, 25, 43, 53, 55, 60, 64, 67, 79, 82, 83, 97, 98, 105, 110, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 132, 141, 145, 149, 160, 165, 177, 189, 210, 229, 231, 234, 236, 238, 248, 252 & 267 Thus, on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the combined written test and interview, educational qualifications, rural area, computer qualifications and additional qualifications/achievements, merit lists of Information and Public Relations Officers (Annexure P-10) and Assistant Public Relations Officers (Annexure P-11) were framed. It was at this stage, five extra marks under the Head "Numbers of Rural Area" were awarded to the concerned candidates and the merit positions read as thus:
Merit list of Information and Public Relations Officer (11 posts) (General Category-5) Sr. Name and Roll Numbers of Numbers of Numbers of Numbers of Number of Numbers of otal No. No. of candidate Writen est Interview Rural Area Educational Computer Additional ( otal-75) ( otal-12) ( otal-5) Qualifcation Qualifcation Qualifcationn ( otal-5) ( otal-4) Achievements ( otal-4)
1. Navdeep 32.63 11 5 5.0 - 1.5 55.13 Singh Roll No.82
2. Sher Jung 32.75 10 5 3.0 - 1.5 52.25 Singh Hundal Roll No.53 Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [13] Sr. Name and Roll Numbers of Numbers of Numbers of Numbers of Number of Numbers of otal No. No. of candidate Writen est Interview Rural Area Educational Computer Additional ( otal-75) ( otal-12) ( otal-5) Qualifcation Qualifcation Qualifcationn ( otal-5) ( otal-4) Achievements ( otal-4)
3. Gurmeet 32 11 - 5.0 2 1.5 51.50 Singh Roll No.13
4. Jagdeep 29.38 09 5 5.0 - 1.5 49.88 Singh Gill Roll No.120
5. Narinder Pal 33.75 10 - 3.0 - 1.5 48.25 Singh Roll No.25 X X X X X X X X X
19. Gurpreet 26.63 03 - 3.0 - - 32.63 Singh Mehak Roll No.149 Merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officer (21 posts) (General Category-9)
1. Navdeep 32.63 11 5 4.0 - 1.0 53.63 Singh Roll No.82
2. Sher Jung 32.75 10 5 3.5 - 1.0 52.25 Singh Hundal Roll No.53
3. Gurmeet 32 11 - 4.0 - 1.0 48.50 Singh Roll No.13
4. Jagdeep 29.38 09 5 4.0 - 1.0 48.25 Singh Gill Roll No.120
5. Narinder Pal 33.75 10 - 3.5 - 1.0 48.25 Singh Roll No.25 X X X X X X X X X
40. Gurdeep 23.13 04 - 2.5 - 0.5 30.13 Singh Mann Roll No.267 It would be crucial at this juncture, to notice further that Navdeep Singh, who figures at serial No.1 in the list of Information and Public Relations Officers (Annexure P-10), also occupies the first slot in the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers (Annexure P-11). And likewise, the first five Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [14] candidates in both the merit lists are common. It would be crucial to point at this stage that, the candidates who had competed for selection against both the posts and were able to secure a slot for themselves in the merit lists drawn for both the categories, were appointed as Information and Public Relations Officers. These are the candidates who are now being appointed as Assistant Public Relations Officers pursuant to the revised merit list after deletion of five extra marks.
Compliance of the decision of this court dated 30.01.2014 i.e. to re-cast the merit list of Information and Public Relations Officers by excluding five extra marks awarded to the candidates in the aforesaid category, would entail three fold ramifications. In the first situation, there would be candidates who even without addition of five extra marks to their score had secured a position in the merit list. In their case, addition of five extra marks only improved their merit position, as they were already in the merit list and thus deletion of five extra marks from their score would only restore their original position in the merit list. In the second situation, there would be those candidates who could not make a cut on the basis of their original merit and rather it was the addition of five extra marks awarded to them that brought them in the merit list. Deletion of said marks would Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [15] place them in the position they were. In the third situation, with which we are concerned in the present lis, there would be candidates who had applied against both the posts and by virtue of their original score, they had secured a position for themselves in the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers. Addition of five extra marks to their score not only improved their merit position in the said list but also secured them a position in the merit list of Information and Public Relations Officers. In their case, deletion of five extra marks from their score would, as a necessary and inevitable consequence, restore their original merit in the list of Assistant Public Relations Officers. In other words, if addition of five extra marks brought them into the merit list of Information and Public Relations Officers, the deletion would restore their original position in the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers. Grievance of the petitioners is that, to adjust such candidates as Assistant Public Relations Officers, their services were terminated. Concededly, petitioners failed to make a cut originally and thus were not in the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers. It was only the addition of five extra marks to their score and/or the slots those were vacated by the candidates who were already in the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers but were appointed as Information and Public Relations Officers, Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [16] the petitioners stood a chance and were appointed. The petitioners were merely the beneficiaries of the said situation and now when the original position is being restored, they cannot make any grievance.
Albeit selection of Assistant Public Relations Officers was not technically under challenge before this Court but the fact remains that this Court had directed the authorities to re-cast the merit list of Information and Public Relations Officers after ignoring five additional marks awarded to the candidates in the aforesaid category. Thus, if the process to re-cast the merit of a candidate after deletion of five extra marks restores his original position in the merit list of Assistant Public Relations then, it is a necessary and an inevitable consequence of such an exercise. Most certainly the said process would have a resultant effect on the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers as well. Thus, as a necessary consequence even the merit list of Assistant Public Relations Officers had to be re-cast by deleting the advantage of five extra marks.
We may also point out that similarly situated and circumstanced candidates like petitioners, who were also serving as Assistant Public Relations Officers, had assailed the decision of this Court dated 30.01.2014 vide LPA No.356 of 2014. What needs to be noticed here is that although they Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [17] were not parties before the Court, which had rendered the decision dated 30.01.2014, but being clear and conscious that the said decision would indeed have a direct bearing on their selection, had challenged the aforesaid decision being affected parties. It was not their case at all that selection of Assistant Public Relations Officers and merit list being separate, decision of this Court dated 30.01.2014 would not apply in their case. Rather, process of selection being common vis-a- vis both the posts, they adopted the arguments that were advanced on behalf of the Information and Public Relations Officers. Still further, vide order dated 30.11.2013, the orders regarding successful completion of probation period of Information and Public Relations Officers and Assistant Public Relations Officers were issued by the State subject to the decisions by this Court in CWP No.15646 of 2011 - 'Parminder Singh v. State of Punjab' and CWP No.15645 of 2011 - 'Kultar Singh v. State of Punjab' in which the selection and resultant appointments of Information and Public Relations Officers were in question. Thus, it surprises us as to how it can be maintained that merit list and selection of petitioners being separate, the decision of this Court dated 30.01.2014 would have no bearing on their selection.
In the wake of the position as set out above, the petitions are wholly misconceived and being devoid of merit Rajan Kumar 2014.09.03 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.8839 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. [18] are, accordingly, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE JUDGE
August 27, 2014
Rajan
Rajan Kumar
2014.09.03 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh