Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 September, 2017
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23737 of 2011
Reserved on: 01.08.2017
Date of decision:13.09.2017
Deepak Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr.R.K. Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Mr.Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate, for respondent No.4 & 5.
Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Advocate, for respondents No.7 to 10.
****
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
The petitioner seeks setting aside of the selection of respondents No.3 to 6, done by the official respondents, as per the selection/result dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P-4), for the post of Shift Attendant against the 560 vacancies which were advertised vide advertisement No.13 dated 07.10.2007 (Annexure P-1). A further prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondent No.2-Haryana Staff Selection Commission, to select him as per his high merit and high percentage.
2. The petitioner's pleaded case is that the respondent-
Commission, vide the said advertisement, advertised various posts and under Category No.15, posts of Attendants and Shift Attendants were advertised wherein the essential qualifications were prescribed for which the petitioner was fully eligible. He had been issued roll number for the interview which was held in November, 2008 and on account of the 1 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:38 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -2- percentage of his marks achieved in his 10th and 12th in the ITI Diploma, he was highly confident about being selected.
3. On the publication of the result dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure P-4), he came to know that the last selected candidate had secured 49.59 marks and the last candidate in the waiting list had got 48.05 marks. The marks in the viva-voce were fixed at 25 whereas for the academic qualifications, marks were fixed at 50 He accordingly, applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called 'RTI, 2005) wherein he was informed that he had got 40.04 and 7 marks against roll No.02532. He had filed an appeal as the complete information had not been supplied and the Commission had directed on 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-9) that he would be entitled to inspect the relevant record as per the above-referred application, since he had asked for specific information regarding all selected candidates.
4. Accordingly, as per the inspection done, the petitioner relied upon the chart (Annexure P-10) that he had only been awarded 7 marks in the interview out of 25 and he had secured 40.04 marks on the strength of his academics. Since no criteria had been given as to how the 25 marks had to be bifurcated, resultantly, it was his grouse that persons who had got high marks in accordance with their academic performance, were given low marks in the interview so that they could not make the cut and he, accordingly, placed reliance upon the chart (Annexure P-10) on the strength of the inspection of the record, to submit that persons who were in the range of 20 and 30 in the academics were granted marks ranging 2 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -3- from 16 to 22 whereas persons who had got higher marks in the academics had been granted paltry marks in the interview, to keep them out of the zone of selection.
5. The official respondents defended the selection on the ground that the petitioner could not make the grade on the basis of the average performance in the interview and once he had appeared in the interview and participated, he could not turn-around and submit that the procedure was unfair. Marks had been awarded as per the performance of the candidates and the selection criteria had been fixed by the Commission which had devised a uniform and definite criteria and it could not be challenged as the selecting body had a right to fix the selection criteria.
6. Respondent No.3 took the plea that the marks awarded for the selection could not be questioned and the petitioner had not have performed well at the time of interview and merely because of higher technical qualifications, he did not have a right, as such, for selection.
No allegation of mala fides have been alleged against the answering-
respondent and therefore, the appointments were not liable to be interfered with.
7. Respondents No.4 & 5 took similar defence that having participated in the selection process, the petitioner could not challenge the same and the marks awarded could not be questioned at this stage.
The answering respondents had the 3 years Diploma Degree and the selection body had to shortlist the candidates on the basis of some criteria 3 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -4- for selection.
8. In view of the order dated 29.03.2016 regarding the availability of the post of Shift Attendants, the official respondents had filed an additional affidavit dated 12.05.2016 wherein 60 vacancies were there, after keeping the posts reserved to SBC category, as per letter dated 10.05.2016, in principal. It was further averred that the petitioner could not be accommodated against the vacant posts because his name was neither in the list of selected candidates nor in the waiting list.
9. The record had been directed to be produced relating to the award of the interview marks on 16.01.2017. The Secretary of the respondent-Commission came present on 07.03.2017 and stated that the record had been destroyed in view of the resolution dated 27.07.1992 and 01.10.1994. The record qua respondent No.4 in the qualifications examination, reference of which has been made in column No.10, 11 and 12, as per Annexure P-10, was directed to be produced vide order dated 07.03.2017. On 28.04.2017, it was noticed by the Coordinate Bench that respondents No.3 & 4 had merely obtained 28.28 and 27.29 marks, respectively but had got 22 marks each in the interview and the criteria for awarding the 25 marks was under the following heads:
(i) Knowledge of Subject,
(ii) Communication Skill,
(iii) General Knowledge
(iv) General Awareness and
(v) Intelligence.
4 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -5-
10. It was, accordingly, held that it was apparent that there was arbitrariness in awarding the marks and the appointment of private-
respondents No.3 & 4 were liable to be set aside. State Counsel, at that time, had stated that necessary efforts to accommodate the petitioners would be made. Thereafter, various appointing authorities-respondents No.7 to 10, being the Nigams and the Haryana Power Corporation were impleaded on account of the fact that the implementation of the order dated 28.04.2017 could be done.
11. On 01.06.2017, counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner could not be accommodated for the reasons that over and above the petitioner there are number of more meritorious candidates and therefore, he had no right, as such, over and above them, for appointment.
12. The argument of the State and the private-respondents is that the petitioner had taken part in the process and the waiting list candidates had also been appointed who are not party and respondent No.3 was not the last candidate and there were other candidates who also got more than 20 marks in the interview and complete necessary parties have not been impleaded and on pick and choose method, the private-respondents have been impleaded. There were more than 42 candidates over and above the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had no vested right for appointment.
13. State Counsel also vehemently submitted that the writ petition was only filed in the year 2011 and therefore, the records were destroyed as per the instructions and on account of the delay and in the 5 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -6- absence of record, the petitioner, as such, could not seek the benefit of appointment.
14. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has rightly submitted that the petitioner was agitating for his grievance right from August, 2010, once the result was declared to get the required information and the same being withheld, he had to contest to the level of the Commission under the RTI Act, 2005, to get the information and had approached this Court at the earliest once the order had been passed on 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-9), whereby he had inspected the record.
15. There is no quarrel with the proposition that all selected candidates should have been impleaded so that they would be given a change to oppose the writ petition and give way, in case the petitioner was to be appointed against them or in case the selection is to be set aside. However, in view of the fact that there are 60 vacant seats available, as per the affidavit and keeping in view the above interim orders passed, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for consideration to the said post, having been agitating for his grievances right from the year 2010. The arbitrariness in awarding the marks of interview is apparent as would be clear from the following chart which would demonstrate how inspite of the academic marks obtained by the petitioner, he has been arbitrarily cut out by the Interview Committee of the respondent-Commission:
6 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -7- Candidates Merit Academic Interview Total Roll Nos. marks marks marks No. (out of (out of 25) obtained
50) Respondent 191 28.92 22 50.92 257 No.5 Respondent 211 28.28 22 50.28 121 No.4 Respondent 214 29.05 21 50.05 1369 No.6 Respondent 220 22 49.59 1791 No.3 27.59 Petitioner ---- 40.04 07 47.04 2532
16. As noticed, the selection record of the interview has not been produced on account of the fact that it has been destroyed and therefore, it is not possible for this Court, as such, to find out as to what prevailed and why the petitioner was only given 7 marks out of the 25 in the interview and why he fared so badly. Academically, on the strength of his basic qualifications and essential qualifications, he was well placed and far ahead of the private-respondents which would be clear from the table reproduced above. The interview criteria, as noticed above was out of 25 marks by assessing the knowledge of the subject, communication skills, general knowledge, general awareness and intelligence and the candidates academic merit could not have been altered by the respondent-
Commission in any manner as there was no dispute, as such, qua the basic qualifications of Matriculation and +2 which would fetch 0.10 of the percentage of marks in whichever higher marks had been obtained.
Similarly, for the 2 years ITI certificates, one course in electricians/electrical environment would fetch 0.04 of the percentage of 7 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -8- marks and was to be calculated out of the 40 marks similarly, for which, no discretion would lie with the Selection Committee. The only area they could have played was with the 25 marks awarded in interview to compile the merit-list.
17. The record produced shows interesting statistics since as many as 590 Shift Attendants were recommended along with the waiting candidates vide letter dated 13.08.2010 on the basis of the interview held in the month of November, 2008. The candidates selected in the waiting list were to be considered within a period of one year from the date of the issuance of the letter as per the recommendation sent to the Managing Director of the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula-
respondent No.8. Similarly, names of 8 candidates were forwarded to the Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd.-
respondent No.9, belonging to the reserved categories/ECM/SC/OSB.
Since this Court is only dealing with the claim of the petitioner against general candidates, the number of marks awarded by the respondent-
Commission against such candidates who had secured more than 35 marks on the strength of their academic qualifications was scrutinized to find out the general pattern of awarding of the marks in the interview.
The same shows a disturbing trend as to as much as it would be clear from the table below that majority of the candidates who had got 35 marks in the academics have been given less than 15 marks in the interview, to ensure that they do not make the final cut. The chart read as under:
8 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -9- S.No. Roll Name Total/50 Viva/ Grand Total/75 No. Father's Name As per 25 prescribed qualifica-
tions 1 00007 Jagpal 35.23 16 51.23 Sher Singh 2 00008 Sandeep Singh 35.24 9 44.24 Ramesh Singh 3 00020 Ishwar Singh 35.22 11 46.22 Dewa Singh 4 00023 Pardeep Kumar 37.27 7 44.27 Nathu Ram 5 00024 Vinod Kumar 35.48 10 45.48 Balwan Singh 6 00045 Vikash 37.54 8 45.54 Raghbir Singh 7 00051 Devender Singh 36.16 8 44.16 Rajender Singh 8 00052 Pawan Kumar 36.76 8 44.76 Sube Singh 9 00053 Parveen Kumar 37.41 9 46.41 Veer Singh 10 00062 Mukesh Kumar 38.14 8 46.14 Jaswant Singh 11 00065 Rajesh Kumar 35.01 9 44.01 Lakhi Ram 12 00066 Jasvir 39.15 7 46.15 Raj Kumar 13 00070 Dindayal 37.44 8 45.44 Satnayan 14 00086 Yashpal 36.71 8 44.71 Ramanlal 15 00092 Ajay Kumar 37.43 7 44.43 Balwant Singh 16 00095 Balkar Singh 37.00 10 47.00 Mian Singh 17 00101 Arun Kumar 37.27 8 45.27 Kailash Chander 9 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -10-
18 00102 Surender Singh 35.32 8 43.32 Sube Singh 19 00110 Budh Ram 37.10 8 45.10 Relu Ram 20 00111 Paramjeet 35.00 8 43.00 Chatar Singh 21 00114 Vikram Jeet 37.61 11 48.61 Singh Om Parkash 22 00118 Ajeet 35.98 8 43.98 Sadhu Ram 23 00124 Surender Singh 36.41 10 46.41 Amrit Lal 24 00132 Kulwant Singh 35.81 10 45.81 Dalip Singh 25 00141 Dharmbir 37.36 17 54.36 Surjit 26 00143 Pawan Sharma 36.05 8 44.05 Vijay Prakash 27 00144 Monika Rani 36.47 11 47.47 Anil Kumar 28 00145 Hitesh Kumar 36.59 8 44.59 Yog Raj 29 00148 Rohtash Kumar 38.28 8 46.28 Dharam Pal 30 00156 Ved Pal 38.07 9 47.07 Inder Singh 31 00161 Mohinder Pal 36.09 8 44.09 Om Parkash 32 00166 Kuldeep Singh 38.40 8 46.40 Indraj Singh 33 00168 Jitender Pal 36.25 9 45.25 Singh Nanak Chand 34 00173 Sunil Kumar 36.48 8 44.48 Swaran Singh 35 00183 Sunil 38.22 8 46.22 Hardeva Singh 36 00191 Sunil Kumar 35.17 18 53.17 Krishan Singh 10 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -11- 37 00194 Satyapal 36.03 10 46.03 Nihal Singh 38 00196 Naresh Kumar 36.20 16 52.20 Om Parkash 39 00199 Pardeep Kumar 35.57 11 46.57 Dharampal 40 00200 Rajesh Kumar 36.57 10 46.57 Dolet Ram 41 00201 Gaurav Sharma 37.16 10 47.16 Sukhvardan Kumar 42 00213 Rajesh Kumar 35.92 18 53.92 Chhaju Ram 43 00226 Harpal Singh 37.34 9 46.34 Ajit Singh 44 00227 Randheer 38.90 7 45.90 Khem Chand 45 00231 Vinod Kumar 35.10 10 45.10 Dass Sharat Kumar 46 00233 Virender Kumar 37.22 9 46.22 Banarsi Dass Tandon 47 00237 Kapil 39.30 14 53.30 Vinod 48 00238 Jasbir Singh 37.66 7 44.66 Karam Chand 49 00264 Anoop 37.04 10 47.04 Sita Ram 50 00268 Labh Singh 35.95 8 43.95 Puran Chand 51 00270 Virender Singh 37.73 9 46.73 Ranbir Singh 52 00271 Sukhdev Singh 36.46 8 44.46 Hawa Singh 53 00273 Parveen Kumar 36.51 9 45.51 Ram Kumar 54 00277 Parmjit 37.04 17 54.04 Inder Singh 55 00278 Lalit Kumar 37.89 7 44.89 Ramji Lal 11 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -12- 56 00282 Virender Singh 35.20 11 46.20 Om Kanwar 57 0285 Mukesh Kumar 38.94 7 45.94 Ramjatan Singh 58 00299 Ashwani Kumar 36.25 8 44.25 Jasswant Singh 59 00308 Shyam Lal 35.93 8 43.93 Sohan Lal 60 00310 Naveen Kumar 36.37 10 46.37 Sadhu Ram 61 00312 Surender 36.28 9 45.28 Sarup Chand 62 00315 Surinder Singh 36.37 10 46.37 Ram Chander 63 00317 Parveen Kumar 36.06 10 46.06 Shri Krishan 64 00326 Nasib Singh 38.09 9 47.09 Ram Chander 65 00345 Birender Singh 40.82 7 47.82 Chatter Singh 66 00359 Sant Ram 38.09 9 47.09 Sri Chand Tyagi 67 00365 Jaspal Singh 40.24 7 47.24 Malkeet Singh 68 00367 Pawan Kumar 35.84 19 54.84 Ramesh Chander 69 00370 Raj Kumar 37.45 9 46.45 Jai Pal 70 00374 Ravinder 40.63 18 58.63 Kumar Sadhu Ram 71 00379 Vikas Malik 35.13 7 42.13 Subhash Malik 72 00391 Rakesh 35.71 16 51.71 Bal Krishan 73 00395 Pawan Kumar 36.99 20 56.99 Kewal Krishan 74 00419 Tejveer 37.60 8 45.60 Mange Ram 12 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -13- 75 00421 Jitender Kumar 36.44 8 44.44 Umed Singh 76 00423 Vipin Kumar 37.87 7 44.87 Surinder Kumar 77 00425 Pankaj Kumar 38.68 8 46.68 Bijender Kumar 78 00432 Ranvir 36.70 8 44.70 Om Parkash 79 00435 Bhagwan 35.72 22 57.22 Ram Kumar 80 00436 Sandeep 36.35 9 45.35 Ram Kumar 81 00444 Munish Kumar 35.63 10 45.63 Ram Singh 82 00447 Pawan Kumar 35.24 11 46.24 Umed Singh 83 00451 Narinder Kumar 35.29 8 43.29 Prahlad Chouhan 84 00452 Mahesh Chand 36.30 8 44.30 Gautam Ramswaroop Singh 85 00456 Satish Kumar 35.67 18 53.67 Mahavir 86 00457 Sonu Sharma 38.05 9 47.05 Jai Narayan 87 00460 Mukesh Gupta 38.18 9 47.18 Amar Nath 88 00462 Vikas Kumar 37.42 9 46.42 Deepak Kumar 89 00464 Ashish Gupta 36.11 9 45.11 Sushil Kumar 90 00467 Raj Pal 37.80 9 46.80 Prithvi Singh 91 00469 Satpal 35.41 10 45.41 Ram Singh 92 00475 Chander 37.07 18 55.07 Shekhar Sham Sunder Sethi 93 00480 Sunil 37.85 8 45.85 Richhpal Singh 13 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -14- 94 00481 Radhe Shyam 35.42 9 44.42 Lakshmi Narain 95 00485 Satish Kumar 36.22 17 53.22 Gurbax Lal 96 00489 Shantshah 35.41 20 55.41 Satbir Singh 97 00490 Manvender Singh 37.65 8 45.65 Shilak Ram 98 00496 Baldev Raj 36.01 10 46.01 Ladha Ram 99 00497 Ashok Kumar 35.87 16 51.87 Bhale Ram 100 00500 Sonu 38.27 20 58.27 Jaipal Singh 101 00505 Wazir Singh 34.49 10 44.49 Ishwar Singh 102 00512 Suresh Kumar 35.60 9 44.60 Dalip Singh 103 00514 Gopal Krishan 38.33 16 54.33 Amir Chand 104 00515 Sukhender 37.41 18 55.41 Mohinder Singh 105 00517 Prem Parkash 35.20 8 43.20 Kailash Chand 106 00518 Vijay Pal 35.55 8 43.55 Mohinder Singh 107 00523 Mahabir Singh 35.42 8 43.42 Gopal 108 00525 Sunil Kumar 38.59 8 46.59 Raj Kumar 109 00526 Anil Kumar 35.29 11 46.29 Ranbir Singh 110 00539 Jatin Kumar 35.66 9 44.66 Shanker Lal 111 00548 Shailja Kumari 36.71 12 48.71 Mange Ram 112 00554 Parveen Kumar 37.68 9 46.68 Prakash Chand 113 00555 Pardeep Kumar 36.16 10 46.16 Pala Ram 14 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -15- 114 00557 Hare Ram 35.80 11 46.80 Vidhya Singh 115 00558 Somdutt 35.30 9 44.30 Om Parkash 116 00572 Bhagwan Singh 36.90 10 46.90 Ganga Ram 117 00580 Ashwani Kumar 35.90 18 53.90 Ram Partap 118 00583 Dinesh Kumar 39.05 7 46.05 Rattan Singh 119 00590 Parkash 36.41 18 54.41 Sumer Singh 120 00592 Ajay Kumar 37.28 7 44.28 Mahender Singh 121 00597 Pawan Kumar 37.50 7 44.50 Bir Singh 122 00607 Pankaj Gulati 36.94 9 45.94 Subhash Chand 123 00608 Pawan Kumar 35.37 10 45.37 Mahavir Singh 124 00611 Rajeev Kumar 37.91 7 44.91 Phogat Sarshvrup 125 00613 Manoj Kuar 36.92 9 45.92 Balbir Singh 126 00622 Vijay Pal 35.22 11 46.22 Brahama Nand 127 00648 Rakesh 36.87 9 45.87 Balwant Singh 128 00652 Prakashvir 36.64 9 45.64 Chauhan Ratan Singh 129 00658 Sanjeev Kumar 39.30 8 47.30 Partap Singh 130 00662 Birender Singh 36.62 9 45.62 Ramphal 131 00688 Pawan Kumar 35.60 18 53.60 Satbir Singh 132 00690 Dilbag Singh 39.48 7 46.48 Parmal Singh 15 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -16- 133 00691 Suresh Kumar 35.63 9 44.63 Diwan Singh 134 00698 Harbir Singh 38.50 17 55.50 Koore Ram 135 00699 Anurag Thukral 37.25 9 46.25 Birbhan Thakral 136 00713 Kuldeep 38.41 8 46.41 Daya Chand 137 00715 Amit Kumar 38.80 7 45.80 Som Nath 138 00718 Megh Raj 36.63 8 44.63 Kastoori Mal 139 00725 Dal Chand 35.77 10 45.77 Manohari Lal 140 00728 Pankaj Bhalla 38.44 8 46.44 Harish Chander 141 00734 Jitender Singh 35.83 19 54.83 Sher Singh 142 00741 Ravinder Singh 37.57 8 45.57 Hari Ram 143 00755 Nasib Singh 35.39 9 44.39 Harpal Singh 144 00756 Sunil 35.27 10 45.27 Prem Chand 145 00758 Deepak Kumar 36.82 8 44.82 Ram Narain 146 00760 Mukesh Dutt 36.19 18 54.19 Subash Chander Dutt 147 00761 Radhe Shyam 35.93 9 44.93 Rohtash 148 00775 Parvesh Kumar 37.43 9 46.43 Prem Chand 149 00776 Deepak Sharma 36.90 7 43.90 Raj Kumar Sharma 150 00777 Bijender Singh 36.76 7 43.76 Om Parkash 151 00778 Sandeep 35.36 12 47.36 Randhir 16 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -17- 152 00781 Kuldeep Khasa 35.42 11 46.42 Zile Singh 153 00787 Amit Sharma 38.80 8 46.80 Janak Raj 154 00803 Vijender Kumar 35.24 10 45.24 Shree Dutt 155 00815 Gulshan Kumar 37.97 8 45.97 Roshan Lal 156 00816 Yatinder Hooda 39.66 7 46.66 Satbir Singh 157 00826 Ram Mehar 37.40 8 45.40 Om Parkash 158 00828 Vinod Kumar 35.63 8 43.63 Krishan Lal 159 00839 Rohit 40.31 7 47.31 Jai Parkash 160 00845 Sachin Kumar 35.65 8 43.65 Ashok Kumar 161 00852 Bhupender Singh 38.20 8 46.20 Laje Ram 162 00859 Rajesh Kumar 35.30 17 52.30 Purushottam 163 00867 Baljit Singh 35.56 10 45.56 Kartar Singh 164 00874 Kuldeep Kumar 38.60 8 46.60 Raj Kumar 165 00880 Rakesh 38.50 8 46.50 Tika Ram 166 00883 Rakeh Deswal 35.54 8 45.54 Raj Kumar 167 00887 Ravinder 37.99 9 46.99 Khazan Singh 168 00892 Aman 37.06 8 45.06 Ashok Kumar 169 00896 Deepak Punia 38.85 7 45.85 Jai Narain 170 00902 Deepak 36.25 9 45.25 Manchanda Harbans Lal 171 00909 Anup Singh 36.15 10 46.15 Baldev Singh 17 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -18- 172 00911 Manjeet Kumar 35.08 9 44.08 Dalbir Singh 173 00912 Deep Singh 36.80 10 46.80 Om Parkash 174 00913 Deepak Badola 39.27 7 46.27 Luxmi Dutt Badola 175 00915 Ranbir Singh 35.43 8 43.43 Sohan Ram 176 00917 Devender Bhatia 38.33 8 46.33 Parbhu Dayal Bhatia 177 00920 Rajpal 36.57 9 45.57 Mukhtyar Singh 178 00925 Varun 36.76 10 46.76 Rajinder Parshad 179 00937 Pardeep Kumar 35.43 10 45.43 Manohar Lal 180 00939 Dalip Kumar 35.20 10 45.20 Mehar Chand 181 00948 Vinod Kumar 35.80 9 44.80 Jai Singh 182 00955 Deepak Bangar 35.69 11 46.69 Dayaram 183 00959 Devi Parsad 38.14 8 46.14 Chander Bhan 184 00960 Uma Shankar 36.84 10 46.84 Gobind Ram 185 00964 Dharamvir 36.53 17 53.53 Singh Ram Chander 186 00969 Mukesh Kumar 36.44 8 44.44 Raj Kumar 187 00980 Narender Kumar 39.67 15 54.67 Ved Pal 188 00983 Naresh Kumar 36.94 9 45.94 Raj Kumar 189 00988 Madanjeet 35.93 11 46.93 Randhir Singh 190 00990 Amit 38.49 8 46.49 Surajmal 18 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -19- 191 01003 Dilbag 39.80 8 47.80 Dhanraj Singh 192 01007 Mamraj 38.99 7 45.99 Jaipal 193 01014 Rajbeer Sharma 37.43 8 45.43 Labh Chand Sharma 194 01020 Balvinder Singh 35.01 10 45.01 Avtar Singh 195 01023 Geeta Devi 36.75 10 46.75 Balbir Singh 196 01032 Sunil Kumar 37.29 10 47.29 Pala Ram 197 01034 Ashmer Singh 37.70 8 45.70 Ramkala 198 01035 Raghvender 39.52 8 47.52 Sharma Dinesh Sharma 199 01039 Sandeep Kumar 35.38 11 46.38 Jaibir Singh 200 01040 Amit Kumar 35.26 9 44.26 Vijay Kumar 201 01042 Pushpender 35.80 10 45.80 Kumar Vikram Singh 202 01043 Satya Narain 36.35 10 46.35 Abhay Ram 203 01057 Vijay Kumar 35.09 9 44.09 Jai Kishan 204 01058 Manoj Kumar 35.63 9 44.63 Amar Nath Verma 205 01062 Satvir Singh 37.63 8 45.63 Parbhu Singh 206 01075 Ajay Kumar 35.89 10 45.89 Jagbir Singh 207 01078 Pawan 35.90 9 44.90 Pooran Singh 208 01083 Sachita Nand 37.70 8 45.70 Ojha Radhe Shyam Ojha 19 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -20- 209 01092 Neetu Rani 35.09 10 45.09 Mahavir Parshad 210 01093 Arun Kumar 37.36 10 47.36 Nemi Chand 211 01103 Pawan Kumar 35.93 17 52.93 Ram Singh 212 01109 Lakhi Ram 36.18 8 44.18 Chiranji Lal 213 01121 Takdir Singh 35.50 16 51.50 Jagat Singh 214 01123 Balwan Singh 36.85 10 46.85 Jagdish Parsad 215 01130 Tilak Raj 35.67 9 44.67 Bodh Raj 216 01131 Pawan Kumar 36.31 18 54.31 Jai Bhagwan 217 01133 Parveen Kumar 35.67 11 46.67 Bhim Singh 218 01135 Subhash Chand 35.20 10 45.20 Bal Kishan 219 01136 Dharmendera 35.84 9 44.84 Singh Vijay Singh 220 01139 Bhoop Ram 35.22 9 44.22 Shri Narayan Singh 221 01148 Ravinder 38.38 17 55.38 Kumar Pala Ram 222 01157 Balwan Singh 37.40 8 45.40 Balbir Singh 223 01183 Ashok Kumar 38.73 7 45.73 Jai Pal 224 01186 Rameshwar 35.97 10 45.97 Aad Ram 225 01188 Sanjay Kumar 35.15 9 44.15 Dalel Singh 226 01190 Rajinder Sharma 36.84 8 44.84 Prag Raj 227 01192 Dinesh Kumar 36.95 10 46.95 Bhana Ram 20 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -21- 228 01196 Subhash 35.16 11 46.16 Daya Singh 229 01203 Viney Kumar 38.28 7 45.28 Krishan Lal 230 01216 Maan Singh 35.16 10 45.16 Mam Chand 231 01217 Sunil Sharma 36.44 9 45.44 Ramniwas Sharma 232 01220 Hitesh Kumar 35.01 11 46.01 Gera Inder Bhan 233 01222 Naseeb 37.22 10 47.22 Bhal Singh 234 01229 Parveen Kumar 38.95 8 46.95 Om Prakash 235 01233 Rajiv Kumar 35.55 9 44.55 Bhale Sharma 236 01236 Manoj Kumar 35.99 17 52.99 Vir Bhan 237 01239 Pardeep Malik 37.51 9 46.51 Pratap Singh Malik 238 01243 Jaibir 35.74 8 43.74 Dharambir 239 01245 Rajeev Saini 35.05 8 43.05 Baldev Singh 240 01246 Gurcharan Singh 35.16 10 45.16 Gian Singh 241 01247 Harish Kumar 37.65 8 45.65 Uttam Singh 242 01249 Sunil Kumar 35.08 9 44.08 Mangal Dass 243 01254 Vishnu Kumar 35.68 10 45.68 Ram Narayan 244 01258 Sandeep 37.49 8 45.49 Satpal 245 01260 Ashwani Kumar 39.59 7 46.59 Zile Singh 246 01264 Parmod Kumar 36.43 8 44.43 Om Parkash 21 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -22- 247 01269 Arvind Kumar 38.31 8 46.31 Hoshiar Singh 248 01275 Mukesh Kumar 37.18 10 47.18 Om Parkash 249 01277 Pritam Kumar 35.38 17 52.38 Babu Lal 250 01280 Naresh Kumar 36.82 10 46.82 Ram Kumar 251 01285 Dilbag 35.14 16 51.14 Amar Lal 252 01289 Narender Singh 35.47 11 46.47 Ram Chander 253 01292 Satyendra Pal 36.63 9 45.63 Singh Harnarayan Singh 254 01293 Ravinder Kumar 35.71 10 45.71 Randhir Singh 255 01306 Manoj Kumar 38.25 17 55.25 Rathee Nahnu Ram Rathee 256 01307 Ramandeep 36.41 18 54.41 Nand Lal 257 01309 Dinesh Kumar 36.41 18 54.41 Attar Singh 258 01310 Sushil Kumar 39.40 7 46.40 Ramesh Kathuria 259 01314 Sanjay Kumar 35.08 17 52.08 Deep Chand 260 01315 Jasbir Singh 35.47 8 43.47 Puran Singh 261 01318 Vijay Singh 39.10 8 47.10 Dharam Singh 262 01333 Virender Kharb 39.12 7 46.12 Wazir Singh 263 01336 Bijender Singh 36.07 9 45.07 Kapoor Singh 264 01341 Ved Parkash 38.69 7 45.69 Om Parkash 265 01345 Ramesh Kumar 36.90 20 56.90 Ranbir Singh 22 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -23- 266 01347 Sandeep 39.46 7 46.46 Satbir 267 01357 Pardeep Kumar 39.64 7 46.64 Dharampal 268 01360 Krishan Kumar 35.34 10 45.34 Radhe Shyam 269 01361 Amar Singh 36.30 8 44.30 Nathi Ram 270 01366 Shallu 35.86 17 52.86 Ram Dass 271 01371 Vikash 36.00 9 45.00 Satpal Punia 272 01372 Pawan Kumar 38.72 17 55.72 Dharmbir 273 01373 Dharamender 37.13 10 47.13 Bhagi Ram 274 01380 Satnarayan 37.46 8 45.46 Mahinder Singh 275 01382 Suresh Kumar 38.14 8 46.14 Kishan Chand 276 01409 Pardeep Kumar 40.05 7 47.05 Ishwar Singh 277 01414 Ravi Kant 35.65 8 43.65 Bhagwat Parsad 278 01417 Mahinder Singh 36.42 11 47.42 Jagmal Singh 279 01421 Rambilash 35.58 9 44.58 Hari Kishan 280 01430 Anil Kumar 37.13 10 47.13 Satbir 281 01433 Sunil Datt 36.47 8 44.47 Ramsarup 282 01440 Vijender 37.67 8 45.67 Main Pal 283 01441 Ravinder 37.08 8 45.08 Ram Chander 284 01448 Sunil Kumar 36.15 8 44.15 Ramesh Singh 285 01457 Satinder 36.45 10 46.45 Shamsher Singh 23 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -24- 286 01461 Surinder Kumar 36.12 16 52.12 Fateh Singh 287 01464 Bhagwan 35.50 8 43.50 Jai Singh 288 01467 Suraj Mal 37.56 8 45.56 Badan Singh 289 01469 Sandeep Kumar 37.07 8 45.07 Hawa Singh 290 01476 Jitender Pal 36.14 10 46.14 Maya Singh 291 01483 Tara Singh 37.47 9 46.47 Dan Singh 292 01504 Vijender 36.03 16 52.03 Hari Ram 293 01505 Rajesh Kumar 39.78 8 47.78 Prem Pal 294 01507 Ved Parkash 36.13 10 46.13 Ram Kishan 295 01510 Naresh Kumar 37.26 8 45.26 Karan Singh 296 01514 Sonu 36.85 8 44.85 Suresh Chand 297 01517 Teeka Ram 38.40 8 46.40 Sant Ram 298 01528 Pawan Kumar 37.65 8 45.65 Nand Lal 299 01531 Sanjay Kumar 37.95 8 45.95 Jagat Narayan 300 01541 Satbir Malik 36.91 10 46.91 Ishwar Singh Malik 301 01548 Virender Singh 40.79 7 47.79 Ram Phal 302 01549 Dharam Beer 36.67 10 46.67 Darya Singh 303 01551 Parveen Kumar 35.31 9 44.31 Karan Singh 304 01558 Vivek Tomer 35.10 9 44.10 Virender Singh 305 01559 Kiran Bala 36.13 8 44.13 Sher Singh 24 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -25- 306 01565 Dalbir Singh 35.94 20 55.94 Ram Chander 307 01574 Sabir 37.11 8 45.11 Yusuf Khan 308 01576 Deepak Ravish 37.19 8 45.19 Ruldu Ram 309 01579 Anil 37.43 8 45.43 Rajender Prasad 310 01582 Narender 36.85 20 56.85 Kumar Maman Ram 311 01593 Naveen Kumar 36.10 11 47.10 Mahabir 312 01597 Jitender Kumar 35.98 9 44.98 Jai Narayan 313 01621 Suresh Kumar 37.87 19 56.87 Vijay Singh 314 01626 Hemant Singh 36.44 10 46.44 Hoshiyar Singh 315 01628 Kulvant Singh 37.62 8 45.62 Kehri Singh 316 01629 Ramesh Kumar 38.56 8 46.56 Siya Ram 317 01633 Parveen Rawal 35.83 10 45.83 Subhash Chand 318 01635 Satya Naryan 35.76 10 45.76 Sita Ram 319 01645 Kuldeep Singh 37.12 8 45.12 Samunder Singh 320 01655 Ravinder Singh 36.90 17 53.90 Roshan Singh 321 01662 Jitender Kumar 38.95 8 46.95 Chugh Desh Raj Chugh 322 01670 Ashwani Kumar 35.50 11 46.50 Satpal 323 01672 Karam Bir 35.10 16 51.10 Ishwar Singh 324 01684 Sanjay 35.67 8 43.67 Ramsan 25 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -26- 325 01690 Ram Niwas 37.74 16 53.74 Balbir Singh 326 01694 Ashok Kumar 38.17 8 46.17 Ranjeet Singh 327 01698 Harikesh 35.89 9 44.89 Dana Ram 328 01701 Rajender Singh 37.15 8 45.15 Bhim Singh 329 01704 Vinay Prasad 36.99 8 45.99 Ramesh Chander 330 01705 Sunil Chahal 38.26 8 46.26 Jagdish Chahal 331 01706 Sahil Sharma 38.78 8 46.78 Raj Kumar Sharma 332 01712 Vijender Singh 37.09 9 46.09 Prithvi Singh 333 01722 Sandeep 37.55 9 46.55 Budhram 334 01725 Nirmal Singh 38.44 8 46.44 Darshan Singh 335 01727 Parmod Kumar 35.17 11 46.17 Amrit Lal 336 01729 Ashok Kumar 35.56 11 46.56 Chander Bhan 337 01748 Neeraj Singh 35.99 16 51.99 Yashpal Singh 338 01754 Sunil 39.17 7 46.17 Ramphal 339 01765 Jogender Singh 35.60 16 51.60 Sube Singh 340 01767 Vijay Kumar 35.58 11 46.58 Kitab Singh 341 01773 Satish Sharma 34.93 10 44.93 Dewak Ram 342 01774 Navin Kumar 31.24 14 45.24 Ram Partap 343 01782 Ashwani Kumar 36.65 8 44.65 Ved Parkash 344 01786 Samser Singh 38.50 8 46.50 Kapoor Singh 26 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -27- 345 01793 Satish Kumar 37.32 8 45.32 Leela Krishan 346 01798 Vikram Singh 38.65 8 46.65 Jai Singh
18. Thus, a combined reading of the above list of 346 candidates out of 1799 candidates, from the first register prepared, who appeared for the interview of the General Category who had secured more than 35 marks, would go on to show that they have been consciously awarded low marks. This substantiates in principal the argument which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner, that 295 candidates who had secured 35 marks have secured less than 15 marks and only 51 number of candidates were awarded more than 15 marks. The record from Roll No.1800 to 4178, in the second register of 2378 candidates, has also been perused and would go on to show that out of the same, similarly 364 candidates who had secured 35 marks and more, have been awarded less than 15 marks and only 43 candidates out of those were awarded more than 15 marks, but the same is not being reproduced for the purpose of brevity.
19. In view of the above facts a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was a favoritism, as such, which was resorted to by the Selection Committee and the power was misused by the selecting authority for serving an unauthorized purpose and there was malice in law and the petitioner is liable to be appointed. Reliance can be placed upon P. Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & others 2007 (3) SCR 876 wherein the posts of Watchman/Messenger/Attendant had fallen vacant 27 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -28- and the appellant had stood first in the written examination. It was noticed that a policy decision was taken to call 36 candidates which were 3 times the number of 12 posts which had been advertised. Thereafter, the minimum qualifications had been reduced to 46 marks and 11 more persons were permitted to appear in the interview. Resultantly, the zone of consideration had been enlarged from 1:3 to 1:4, which was questioned and why the cut-off marks were also lowered and it was held that the decision taken smacked of arbitrariness and the selection of respondents No.4 & 5 was set aside and direction was given to appoint the appellant by observing as under:
"15. In this case allocation of marks for interview was in fact misused. It not only contravened the ratio laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) and subsequent cases, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to draw an inference of favouritism. The power in this case has been used by the Appointing Authority for unauthorized purpose. When a power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose, the same would amount to malice in law [ See The Manager, Govt. Branch Press and Another v. D.B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429 : [(1979 (1) SLR 351 (SC)], Punjab State Electricity Board v. Zora Singh and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 776 and K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 581]."
20. The argument raised by the respondents is that the petitioner challenges the selection procedure and cannot be permitted to do so. The petitioner is not challenging the criteria as such but only the arbitrariness of the Interview Committee, while awarding the marks which has been substantiated by examining the record. It is also pertinent to notice that 28 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -29- thereafter also, vide advertisement dated 28.02.2016, 2426 posts of Shift Attendants have been re-advertised vide advertisement No.23 of 2016 on behalf of the same appointing agencies who had been arrayed as official-
respondents and therefore, the vacancies are available, as such. The argument raised that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and now is not allowed to challenge the said process, is without any basis and therefore, reliance placed upon Ashok Kumar & another Vs. State of Bihar & others 2017 (4) SCC 357 would be of not much avail to the State. In the said case, the candidates were well aware that the interview was carrying 10 marks and they proceeded taking part in the said process and therefore, it was held that it was not open for them to challenge the said criteria. The petitioner herein is not challenging the criteria, as such, but the manner of awarding of marks, as noticed above and has been successful in demonstrating the prejudice which has been caused to him.
21. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that the private-
respondents are not at the bottom of the selection list merit-wise and there would be other candidates, as such, who have not been impleaded who would be below them and therefore their appointment, as such, is not liable to be disturbed. However, the fact remains that as many as 60 vacancies continue, as per the affidavit dated 12.05.2016 and therefore, the petitioner can be adjusted against the said vacancies, without disturbing the said candidates who were appointed more than 7 years back.
29 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -30-
22. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench allowed the appeal bearing LPA-555-2015 titled Kunal Sharma Vs. Union of India & others, on 18.10.2016, on the ground that there was no record of the awarding of the marks in the head of interview and on account of the record missing the desirability of the selection was doubted.
Accordingly, the selected candidates were not disturbed, which was on account of the fact that they had been working for the last 10 years and no other candidates had come forward to challenge the selection.
Resultantly a direction was given to consider and offer the appointment to the appellant, in the following terms:
"17.) Taking into consideration all these attending circumstances including that:-
(i)The selected candidates are working from last about four years;
(ii)No other candidate has come forward to question the selection;
(iii)The original record comprising proceedings of the Selection Committee are conspicuously missing and have not been produced before the Court;
(iv)The manner in which selection-process has been carried out somehow lacks transparency though it may not be expedient to set aside the same at this juncture and;
(v)The appellant though is stated to be lower in merit but he is not a 'failed' or 'unsuccessful' candidate;
(vi)The appellant who has appeared in person, is apparently from a poor background;
we allow this appeal; set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge and direct the respondents to consider and offer appointment to the appellant on the available post of Safai Wala within a period of two months from the date 30 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 ::: CWP-23737-2011 -31- of receipt of certified copy of this order.
18.) It is further directed that no fresh selection be made without first appointing the appellant on a vacant post of Safai Wala."
23. Accordingly, keeping in view the above, similar direction is issued to the respondent-Commission, to consider the case for the petitioner for appointment against the 60 available vacancies and issue the necessary recommendation to the recruiting agencies within a period of 2 months from today. It is further made clear that the directions have been issued, at this stage, only on account of the fact that the petitioner has been consistently pursuing his remedy right from the declaration of the result and on this account, the other candidates who are having higher merit than the petitioner, but have not chosen not to agitate against the same, would not be entitled for the same relief on the strength of having been better placed in the merit-list.
24. Writ petition stands allowed, in the above-said terms. The official files/records be returned to the State Counsel, under proper receipt.
13.09.2017 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
31 of 31
::: Downloaded on - 19-09-2017 19:30:40 :::