Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 23 October, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20106 OF 2008 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 23, 2009
Saroj
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula & others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. K.L.Suneja, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
164 posts of Principal, H.E.S-II were advertised by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short, "the Commission") on 21.6.2007. 33 posts were meant for scheduled castes. The petitioner was applicant in the category of scheduled caste candidates. 3780 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20106 OF 2008 :2 : applications were received, out of which 418 were for scheduled castes. The petitioner was interviewed and claims to have done well. However, she did not find her name in the list of successful candidates, when the result was declared on 29.1.2008. Complaining that the respondents had not acted fairly, honestly, objectively and impartially while assessing eligibility and merit of the suitable candidate, the petitioner has challenged the selection of all 164 candidates. The petitioner has not impleaded all the selected candidates, though she has challenged their selection, except for two candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category, who are impleaded as respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner would plead that the experience certificate and other documents submitted by these two candidates were doubtful/deficient and, thus, they were ineligible for appointment and would so urge that their selection was not only illegal but was on extraneous consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions with lot of compassion. He would refer to Para 9 of the writ petition to say that he has raised as many as eight grounds to challenge the selection and to point out the infirmities and arbitrariness in the selection process and would, thus, plead that this selection be set- aside. The grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the selection as averred in the writ petition are noted here as under:-
"(iv) Out of 33 Scheduled Castes selected, 2 are such whose experience certificates/documents are doubtful/ deficient (P-25) and as such ineligible and their selection illegal based on extraneous considerations.
(v)One Scheduled Caste candidate with Roll No.00538 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20106 OF 2008 :3 : declared to have been selected (P-22) is neither included in the appointment/posting orders P-23 dated 13.6.2008 and P-24 dated 2.7.2008 nor in the letter P-
25 dated 3.7.2008 whose experience certificates are doubtful/ deficient/bogus and, thus, not eligible.
(vi) Candidates at merits No.90, 117, 126, 18 and 95 are neither included in appointment/posting orders P-23 dated 13.6.2008 and P-24 dated 2.7.20087 nor in letter P-25 dated 3.7.2008 whose experience certificates are doubtful/deficient/bogus.
(vii) 3 candidates who have been selected (P-27) but their results have been withheld had even not completed their documents and were, thus, ineligible as is clear from Annexure P-22 itself.
(viii) Criteria adopted for selection, after the process of selection had already begun, was made known only in the result declared (P-22)."
Reply has been filed on behalf of the Commission as well as respondent No.2. It is stated that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and had obtained 40.35 marks whereas last candidate selected in the category of scheduled caste had obtained 45.03 marks. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioner could not make a cut on merit and, thus, was not appointed.
The petitioner has made number of grievances on the basis of pleadings as noted above but the counsel was not able to substantiate any of these submissions either on the basis of material on record or otherwise. He also could not answer the very valid CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20106 OF 2008 :4 : objection raised by the State that he has pleaded for setting-aside the appointment of all the selected candidates without impleading them as party. The submission by counsel for the petitioner that he has impleaded two persons out of the selected candidates who are lowest in merit would not be enough for this Court to go into the challenge raised by the petitioner against the appointment of all 164 candidates. The plea that these two respondents had produced documents of doubtful or deficient nature is sought to be substantiated on the support of Annexure P-25. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would point out that Annexure P-25 is a communication, seeking clarification and would not in itself indicate that there was any deficiency. He would further significantly point out that the names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not contained in this list and so this limb of the submission made by counsel for the petitioner is really not made out.
Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to generalities and could not show anything from the record that his assessment was not properly made in terms of the criteria that was adopted at the time of selection. The petitioner has also not filed any rejoinder to rebut the factual position reflected in the reply about the marks obtained by the petitioner and those obtained by the last candidate, who was selected in the category of scheduled caste. The plea by the counsel that against 164 posts, only 161 candidates are shown appointed, would also not lead to any consequences because the State counsel justifiably pointed out that the process of checking and appointment may still be on. In any event, this in itself would not be a ground to set-aside the selection CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20106 OF 2008 :5 : made. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
October 23, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE