Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Territory vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 19 September, 2012
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
CWP No.23890 of 2011 & anr. -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23890 of 2011
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another
....Respondents
CWP No.23950 of 2011
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another
....Respondents
Date of Decision: September 19, 2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2 in CWP No.23890 of 2011.
None for the respondents
in CWP No.23950 of 2011.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This order shall dispose of two civil writ petitions bearing Nos.23890 of 2011 and 23950 of 2011 filed by Union Territory, Chandigarh and others for setting aside the order dated 10.2.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, CWP No.23890 of 2011 & anr. -2- Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby separate Original Applications filed by respondents Nawal Kishore Verma and Parminder Pal Singh, were allowed by the common order, and order dated 18.2.2010 annulling the result of selection for the post of Group Instructor was set aside being unjust, arbitrary and unfair.
After notice, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order.
In the present case, on 14.4.2007 one post of Group Instructor for direct recruitment was advertised against which both the respondents, who were already working with the petitioners as Instructors, had applied. They appeared in the interview on 12.9.2007. However, the result of the interview was not declared for a long time. When both the respondents resorted to information about the result under the R.T.I. Act in the year 2010, then they came to know through the copy of select list supplied by the petitioners in which it was clearly mentioned that respondent Nawal Kishore Verma was selected and respondent Parminder Pal Singh was placed in the waiting list. Along with the said letter dated 19.2.2010, the petitioners had also enclosed a copy of the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by petitioner No.2 depicting therein that the result was annulled on the ground that consequent upon the classification of the post of Group Instructors of Govt. Central Crafts Institute for Women, Chandigarh from Group `C' to Group `B' as conveyed vide Chandigarh Administration, Department of Home Order dated 6.5.2007, the interview conducted on 12.9.2007 and the recommendations, thereof of Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, were annulled. The said order was challenged by the private respondents by filing separate Original Applications before the Tribunal. CWP No.23890 of 2011 & anr. -3-
Vide common order dated 10.2.2011, the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications while coming to the conclusion that the re- classification of the post in question from Group `C' to Group `B' was notified on 6.5.2007, whereas the post in question was advertised for direct recruitment much prior to that on 14.4.2007, therefore, the re-classification notification will not be applicable on the said post which was existing prior to the said re-classification in view of the Supreme Court decision in Y.V. Rangaiah & Others Versus J. Sreenivasa Rao & others, 1983 (3) SCC 285 which clearly laid down that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. Secondly it was held that the result of the selection was withheld without any justification and reason, particularly on the ground which came into existence in the year 2007 itself and after the re-classification notification the selection was not annulled, but the selection process was consciously proceeded further and interview was held and selection was made. Therefore, there was no justification after three years to annul the selection. It has been further noticed that during the inordinate unexplained delay, both the private respondents had also become overage and ineligible for the post. Therefore, the annulment of the result after a long time resulted into injustice to them.
Before us, learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others Versus Md. Kalimuddin and others, 1996(1) RSJ 712 argued that even if the vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. Therefore, the petitioners were within their right to annul CWP No.23890 of 2011 & anr. -4- the result of the selection on the aforesaid ground. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention raised by the learned counsel is not sustainable. Though it is true that a successful candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on a post, but the authority/State is required to act bona fidely and valid reasons are to be given in refusing to make the appointment after selection process has been gone through. But, in the present case it has been found by the Tribunal that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the annulment of the result was totally unjust, arbitrary and unfair. It was further found that the annulment of the result on account of re-classification of the post in question from Group `C' to Group `B' was also not justified because after the said classification, the selection process was continued and not only the interview was held but also the result was finalized. Therefore, it cannot be said that the selection was withheld due to re-classification. The decision for annulling the result was taken by the petitioners in the year 2010 only when the respondents insisted through R.T.I. to know about their result which was not declared for a long time. In these facts, it was held that the annulment of the selection was done arbitrarily and the appointment was denied irrationally without any justification. In our opinion, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in case of State of Bihar and others Versus Md. Kalimuddin and others (supra) is distinguishable as in that case the process of appointment was halted as the reservation policy was intended to be adopted, but in the present case even after re- classification of the post from Group `C' to Group `B' the selection process was continued and thereafter not only the interview was held but the selection was also made, and it was only after three years that the order of CWP No.23890 of 2011 & anr. -5- annulment was passed without any justification and reason. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
September 19, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
vkg JUDGE