Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh Randhawa vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 May, 2011
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
C.W.P. No.19671 of 2010
Date of Decision:30.05.2011
Manjit Singh Randhawa
.....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral)
The petitioner had applied for the post of Excise Inspector in the year 1985 and was selected. He along with two others were, however, not given appointment because the selection criteria was changed subsequent to the process of selection having been completed. The action of the respondents in changing this criteria of selection was challenged. The writ petition filed by the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons was dismissed. The matter went up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which accepted the plea of the petitioners and passed the following order:
"We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court insofar as the present appellants are concerned, direct the respondents to verify if the two appellants before us were similarly situated as Vikram Singh and Nawab Singh of Civil Appeal No.2366 of 1989, and if found within the zone, to extend to them the same treatment as was extended to Vikram C.W.P. No.19671 of 2010 -2- Singh and Nawab Singh under this Court's order. We may also clarify that if on account of the passage of time they have become age barred, that fact shall be overlooked. The respondents will take suitable steps to comply with the order within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs."
The petitioner and other two similarly situated persons were appointed on 1.11.1991 after the SLP was decided on 30.4.1991. The two other persons who were similarly placed as the petitioner, namely, Ram Bhagat Sharma and Nawab Singh filed representation that they be granted the deemed date of appointment with effect from the date when others, who had faced the selection with them were appointed. Representation was accepted vide Annexure P.3 and the said two persons who were similar placed as the petitioner, were granted the deemed date of promotion with effect from January, 1986 which was the date of appointment of persons who had faced the same selection process. The petitioner then moved a legal notice on 25.4.2010 seeking parity with the case of two co-petitioners, namely, Ram Bhagat Sharma and Nawab Singh. Since the same was not decided, he filed C.W.P. No.10513 of 2010, which was disposed of on 28.5.2010 with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice of the petitioner by passing a speaking order, which has been done by virtue of Annexure P.6 and the claim of the petitioner has been declined on the ground of delay and laches. This has become the cause of grievance to the petitioner in the instant writ petition.
The respondents have opposed the plea and justified passing of the speaking order by stating that the petitioner has waited for about 20 C.W.P. No.19671 of 2010 -3- years since other similarly situated persons had been appointed and had acquired their due place in the seniority list and, therefore, at this juncture, the said seniority list cannot be disturbed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the plea of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Once the respondents were apprised of the issue in 2007 when they decided the representation of the co-petitioners, it was incumbent upon them to have evaluated cases of other similarly situated persons also and grant them the similar benefit. They themselves entertained and granted the notional date of appointment to the persons who were similarly situated as the petitioner in the year 2007 and, therefore, they cannot negate the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay when on this very parity, they had granted the similar benefit to similarly situated persons. Consequently, the writ petition is accepted. The petitioner is granted deemed date of appointment with effect from the date when his other co-petitioners, namely, Ram Bhagat Sharma and Nawab Singh were granted necessary benefits and ensuing therefrom shall also flow to the petitioner as has been done in the cases of those two persons.
May 30, 2011 ( MAHESH GROVER ) renu JUDGE