Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision:09.07.2014 vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 9 July, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.19909 of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No.19909 of 2002
Date of Decision:09.07.2014
Satwinder Kaur and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
2. CWP No.16343 of 2001
Harish Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
3. CWP No.7 of 2003
Gurpreet Singh and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
4. CWP No.2070 of 2003
Harjinder Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
5. CWP No.3311 of 2003
Krishan Lal ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
6. CWP No.4590 of 2003
Darshan Singh and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
7. CWP No.11083 of 2003
Ravinder Singh and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
8. CWP No.13811 of 2010
Baljinder Singh and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
Thakral Rajeev
2014.07.15 10:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No.19909 of 2002 -2-
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present :Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate,
Mr. M.C. Sachdeva, Advocate,
Mr. Naveen Chowdhri, Advocate,
Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate,
Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate and
Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, D.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. N.D. Kalra, Advocate and
Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (Oral)
This bunch of writ petitions is being decided vide this common order as the facts and issues raised are identical. For the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from CWP No.19909 of 2002.
Feeling aggrieved against the impugned selection of private respondents for appointment to the posts of clerks in the respondent-State, petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking the writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the selection in question.
Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab-respondent No.2 issued advertisement No.1/1997 published on 20.7.1997, inviting the applications from eligible candidates, for the post of clerks. Petitioners claiming themselves to be eligible candidates, applied for the same. After completing the selection process, result thereof was prepared and the same was declared. Petitioners, who remained unsuccessful, claimed that they were more meritorious candidates than the selected candidates. However, the selection making authority failed to consider the better and preferential claim of the petitioners. The marks which were awarded to the petitioners by the then Chairman of respondent-selection board, were not taken into Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.15 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.19909 of 2002 -3- consideration simply on the ground that the said record was not traceable. This was none of the fault of the petitioners.
Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, respondents filed their written statements, controverting the allegations levelled by the petitioners. The writ petitions were admitted for regular hearing. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that selection in question was illegal on the face of it. The marks awarded to the petitioners by the then Chairman, have not been taken into consideration because of which a serious prejudice was caused to the petitioners, for none of their fault. He further submits that in such a situation, the impugned selection cannot be said to be fair and the same was liable to be quashed. He prays for setting aside the impugned selection, by allowing the present writ petitions.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as private respondents submitted that the impugned selection was conducted and finalized, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down for the same. Merit of each and every candidate was duly considered. Petitioners were not found meritorious enough to be put in the selection list. Learned counsel for the respondent-State places strong reliance on the averments taken in paras 2 and 3 of the preliminary submissions in the written statement, as well as on para 7 of the reply on merits, to contend that no prejudice, whatsoever, was caused to the petitioners. The selection in question was fair and deserves to be upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that due to efflux of time, the petitioners do not deserve any relief to be granted at this belated stage, because the private respondents are serving in the Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.15 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.19909 of 2002 -4- respondent-department for the last more than 12 years, as this Court did not think it appropriate to stay the issuance of appointment orders.
While concluding their arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following judgments rendered in Krishan Gopal and others v. State of Haryana and others; 2010 (1) SCT 538; Neelam Rani v. State of Punjab and others; 2010 (1) S.C.T. 588; Bhagwant Pal Singh Virk and others v. State of Punjab and others; (CWP No.2134 of 2002 decided on 22.9.2009; Dr. Satbir Kaur v. Dr. Shobha Rani Dhiman and others; (LPA No.18 of 2008 decided on 12.5.2010); Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana; 1998(8) SCC 59 and Paramjit Kaur v. Union of India and others; (CWP No.7550-CAT of 2008 decided on 2.7.2014). Finally, they pray for dismissal of these writ petitions.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not a fit case warranting exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, at the hands of this Court, for the following more than one reasons.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners could not substantiate any of his arguments, to the effect that it was only one view which was possible to be arrived at, that the selection was not fair and proper. In this view of the matter, if two views were possible and this Court is not sitting in appeal over the selection made by the respondent-Selection Board, coupled with another material fact that the selected/appointed candidates-private respondents have already rendered Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.15 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.19909 of 2002 -5- service for more than 12 years, present one has not been found to be a fit case for issuance of any kind of direction in favour of the petitioners. The impugned selection, in the absence of patent illegality having been pointed out, deserves to be upheld.
The above-said view taken by this Court also finds support from the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court, rendered in Krishan Gopal and others v. State of Haryana and others; 2010 (1) SCT 538; Neelam Rani v. State of Punjab and others; 2010 (1) S.C.T. 588; Bhagwant Pal Singh Virk and others v. State of Punjab and others; (CWP No.2134 of 2002 decided on 22.9.2009; Dr. Satbir Kaur v. Dr. Shobha Rani Dhiman and others; (LPA No.18 of 2008 decided on 12.5.2010); Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana; 1998(8) SCC 59 and Paramjit Kaur v. Union of India and others; (CWP No.7550-CAT of 2008 decided on 2.7.2014).
So far as the marks secured by the petitioners during impugned selection process are concerned, the details thereof have been pointed out by the official respondents in paras-2 and 3 of preliminary submissions and the same read as under:
"That petitioner (except petitioner No.5 (B.C) and petitioner No.12 (S.C (O), were belonging to General Category, who secured marks in the final selection result as per the list annexed as R-1, whereas last selected candidate in general category, secured 71.5 marks. As such, they could not be selected. The petitioners could not be selected/recommended due to lower merit as compared to the selected/recommended candidates.
Similarly, last selected candidate in Backward Class Category secured 69.25 marks whereas the petitioner No.5 namely Shy. Gurdarshan Singhsecured 60 marks. As such, he could not be Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.15 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.19909 of 2002 -6- selected. Similarly, petitioner No.12 namely Sh. Nirmal Singh belonging to Scheduled Caste (O) category secured 66 marks, whereas last selected candidate in Scheduled Caste (O) category secured 69.33 marks, as such he could not be selected"
Although the petitioners filed their replication but the above- said specific averments taken by the official respondents have not been denied by the petitioners, leaving hardly any scope for this Court to interfere and that too at this belated stage. Thus, the impugned selection deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.
No other arguments was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, all these writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 09.07.2014 rajeev Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.15 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh