Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar Kadian vs Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Mkg. ... on 12 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.9820 of 2012
Date of decision: 12.10.2012
Anil Kumar Kadian
-----Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Haryana State Cooperative Supply & Mkg. Fed. Ltd. & ors.
-----Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
---
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
1. As per the averments made in this petition, respon- dent No.2 i.e. Haryana Staff Selection Commission issued adver- tisement No.3/2009, inviting applications for various posts, includ- ing 30 posts of Network Supervisors which included 15 posts for General Category. As per the aforesaid advertisement, following essential qualifications were prescribed for the post of Network Supervisor:-
"(i) A level diploma of DOE-GOI or First Division in BCA/B.Sc. (Computer Science) or CWP No.9820 of 2012 2 First Division B.Sc. (Non-Medical)/B.Com with one year diploma in PGDCA.
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric standard."
2. Case of the petitioner is that he being eligible for ap- pointment to the post of Network Supervisor, submitted his appli- cation in General Category. He was allotted roll No.00307 and was called for interview vide letter dated 29.1.2010. The peti- tioner, accordingly, appeared in the interview on 26.2.2010. The result of the aforesaid selection was declared on 8.9.2010. How- ever, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the Select List.
3. By filing this petition, the aforesaid selection has been challenged by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently ar- gued that the criteria for selection was withheld by respondent No.2 till the last date of receipt of applications on 27.3.2009 and was kept secret from the candidates and thus, the same is against the well settled proposition of law, to the effect that the selecting body must evolve and declare the criteria of selection before initiating the selection process by issuing a public notice. In support of this argument, learned counsel has relied upon a Di- vision Bench judgment of this Court in the case of HPSC, Chan- digarh v. State Information Commission & anr. 2008(3) SCT 552, wherein it has been observed as under:-
CWP No.9820 of 2012 3
"...If the information with regard to selection criterion and marks allocated for academic qualification, expe- rience and interview during the selection process is not disclosed to the candidate then their legitimate right to compete in the selection process is likely to be effected adversely. The criterion for selection and marks allocated to various heads are in public domain and for the benefit of each and every candidate. The taxpayers who are contributing to the public service are also entitled to know as to how the selection of public servant is being made...."
5. A further challenge has been made to the selection on the ground that the same was vitiated, as the selection has been made by the respondent-Staff Selection Commission under the influence of respondent No.17, who was nominated by respon- dent No.1 officially, which is evident from Annexure P-9 i.e. the requisition form, wherein respondent No.1 had allegedly directed respondent No.2 to consult respondent No.17 while finalizing the selection of Network Supervisors.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record as well as the judgment cited at the bar.
7. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of HPSC, Chandigarh v. State Information Commission & anr. (supra), is misconceived. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment CWP No.9820 of 2012 4 would show that the said observations had come in a different set of facts and circumstances. In the aforesaid judgment, the peti- tioner had challenged the orders passed by the State Information Commissioner, whereby Haryana Public Service Commission was directed to furnish the information. Supply of said information was resisted by the Haryana Public Service Commission and in those facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-
"The facts of this case has to be examined in the backdrop of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In the present case, the appli- cant- respondent no.2 have sought information about the criterion adopted by HPSC for selection of Assis- tant Engineers (Electrical) in the year 2004 for 145 posts plus 21 posts. Further information has been sought as to how many marks were allocated for aca- demic qualifications, experience and interview during the election process. It is well settled that selection criterion for every selection has to be laid down by the appointing authority before the commencement of se- lection process for a public service. The afore-men- tioned proposition has been laid down in the case of Secretary A.P. Public Service Commission v. V.B Swapana (2005) 4 SCC 154 and Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajinder Bhimrao Mandave ( 2001) 10 SCC 51. It is equally well settled that no change could be made in the the selection criteria after the announcement of selection process and in any case subsequent change would not apply to the selection process unless there is an express provision made by the legislation to ap-CWP No.9820 of 2012 5
ply such change retrospectively. If the information with regard to selection criterion and marks allocated for academic qualification, experience and interview dur- ing the selection process is not disclosed to the candi- date then their legitimate right to compete in the se- lection process is likely to be effected adversely. The criterion for selection and marks allocated to various heads are in public domain and for the benefit of each and every candidate. The taxpayers who are contrib- uting to the public service are also entitled to know as to how the selection of public servant is being made. The disclosure of such information is unlikely to cause any embarrassment to any private individual as it ob- viously does not relate to private affairs of individual nature. The information sought does not require the disclosure of marks obtained by a particular individual. The candidates who are to take exam either by ap- pearing in the written test or in viva voce are widely in- terested and affected by the disclosure of the informa- tion as their prospectus of selection are likely to im- prove or mar by the selection criterion. We are further of the view that the transparency of recruitment proc- ess by the agencies like Public Service Commission is the hallmark to avoid any whisper. It is well said that sun light is the best antiseptic and secrecy breeds corruption. If there is openness in the processes of selection it promotes equality, objectivity and imparti- ality."
8. There is no dispute with the aforesaid judgment of this Court. However, the said judgment is not applicable in the facts CWP No.9820 of 2012 6 and circumstances of this case, as the petitioner neither sought the details of the criteria nor it was denied by the respondents at his asking. Rather, it is a matter of record that the criteria adopted by the respondents along with the result was supplied to the peti- tioner when it was sought. Moreover, it does not support the argu- ment that criteria has to be declared along with the advertise- ment. It may also be seen that it is petitioner's own case that cri- teria was available on the last date of submission of application.
9. At this stage, a perusal of Annexure P-9, the requisi- tion form sent by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, would show that the respondent No.1 while sending the requisition, had named respondent No.17 in an appropriate column, as an officer of the department, to whom the Government would like to invite to be present to assist them in an advisory capacity. The contention on behalf of the petitioner that of respondent No.1 had asked the respondents to consult respondent No.17, while finalizing the se- lection, is absolutely incorrect in the face of column No.19 of the said requisition form (Annexure P-9). Moreover, no allegation of any bias has been levelled against the said officer. It is, however, a matter of record that the said officer was associated by the Se- lection Board, as an expert.
10. No other point has been raised.
11. Dismissed.
October 12, 2012 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )
CWP No.9820 of 2012 7
ak JUDGE