Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh And Others vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission & ... on 13 July, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7975 of 2012
Date of decision: 13.7.2012
Satnam Singh and others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CWP No.8257 of 2012
Ishwar Singh and others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta,Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP No.7975 of 2012.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP No.8257 of 2012.
Mr. Hitinder Singh Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
By this judgment two aforesaid writ petitions which have been filed on similar facts and wherein common grounds have been raised are being disposed of.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula advertised 1000 posts of Assistant Linemen vide advertisement No.01/2011 dated 19.3.2011 (Annexure P-1). Later on through Corrigendum dated 7.4.2011 and 1.7.2011 the aforesaid posts of Assistant Linemen were enhanced to 4131 posts, for Uttar Haryana and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited.
As per the averments made in these petitions, the petitioners being fully qualified in terms of the essential qualifications as laid down in the advertisement dated 19.3.2001 (Anneuxre P-1) applied in response thereto. As per the further averments, the petitioners are already working with the respondents since long on the post of Assistant Lineman on contract basis and are having sufficient experience. The application forms of the petitioners were duly received by the respondent-Commission. It has been further averred that vide Corrigendum dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure P-3) the total number of posts of ALM as advertised vide advertisement dated 19.3.2011 (Annexure P-1) were increased from 1000 to 4131 and it was mentioned in the corrigendum that these posts were increased from 1000 to 1431 to be filled in by UHBVNL/DHBVNL. It was also mentioned in this corrigendum that the eligible candidates who could not apply earlier, may apply now upto 18.7.2011. However, such candidates who have applied earlier need not apply again as their old applications will be considered. According to the petitioners, in response to the increased posts, several other candidates have applied and thus, scope of their consideration to the posts advertised earlier as per Annexure P-1 stands narrowed down to the extent that the respondent-Commission has now laid down cut-off mark criteria for short listing the candidates and in this way, the petitioners were made to compete with the applicants of subsequent increased vacancies after the expiry of the last date of submission of applications as per Annexure P-1 and that too after clubbing the same with a different organization i.e. DHBVNL. According to the petitioners, UHBVNL and DHBVNL are two separate legal entities and employees of these two entities have different cadre, seniority lists etc. and have no inter-se relation with each other as far as service conditions are concerned. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, the notice dated 12.4.2012 (Annexure P-3) whereby candidates have been shortlisted is sought to be quashed, with a further prayer to quash the Corrigendum dated 1.7.2011 and direction to respondents not to fill up the increased posts of 3131 ALMs.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the advertisement issued by the respondents for selection to the posts of ALM.
At the outset, it is mentioned that though various issues have been raised in the writ petition, however, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have restricted their arguments only to the extent of laying challenge to the procedure adopted by the respondent-Selection Commission of clubbing the procedure for filling up posts of ALMs together for two separate legal entities on the basis of a corrigendum dated 1.7.2011 whereby the scope of consideration of the petitioners has been reduced.
There is no dispute that UHBVNL and DHBVNL are two separate legal entities with all intents and purposes. However, learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that the same set of service rules/procedure applied to the employees of both the Corporations and in fact after unbundling of the Haryana State Electricity Board in 1988, the Haryana Power Sector is comprised of four wholly State Corporations i.e. HVPNL, HPGCL, UHBVNL, DHBVNL and are responsible for power generation, transmission, distribution etc. in the State. The UHBVNL and DHBVNL are entrusted for transmission and distribution of the power. Both these corporations are Government of Haryana undertaking. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners could not substantiate their argument that Haryana Staff Selection Commission was not competent to hold the selection process for recruitment of ALMs in both these Corporations together. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate in any manner as to how such a procedure adopted by the respondents has narrowed down the rights of the petitioners for consideration. Not only this, there is no question of applying different yardsticks for selecting candidates who have applied in response to the advertisements and it could also not be disputed that all the applicants who have applied will be competing with each other for selection on the same footing. The argument that their right of consideration and selection has been reduced is merely an apprehension without any basis as if number of applicants has been increased by issuance of corrigendum dated 1.7.2011, the number of posts have also increased from 1000 to 4131 giving much wider scope to the applicants/petitioners to be selected.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners have further argued that the procedure for short listing the candidates on the basis of cut-off marks has been applied only because of the increase of number of vacancies and there could have been no necessity of applying such a method in case the petitioners were to be selected against 1000 posts of ALM for UHBVNL. There is no data given in the writ petition to support the aforesaid argument. Moreover, right of the employer to short list the candidates on the basis of their merit etc. by resorting to cut-off marks method has not been disputed and as a matter of fact the Notice dated 12.4.2012 (Annexure P-3) has been upheld by this Court in CWP No.12487 of 2012, "titled as Neeraj Kumar and others v. The State of Haryana and another", decided on 6.7.2012.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these petitions.
Dismissed.
July 13, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8257 of 2012 Date of decision: 13.7.2012 Ishwar Singh and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission & ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Hitinder Singh Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
For orders, see CWP No.7975 of 2012.
July 13, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE