Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Saroj Bala And Others on 21 December, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:21.12.2013
State of Haryana and another ....Appellants
Versus
Saroj Bala and others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. P.S.Tobria, Advocate
for Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)
As per the averments made in the suit, the appellants issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Anganwari Workers. In reply thereto, plaintiff-respondent applied for the said post. Since she was eligible, therefore, she was called for interview on 18.10.2007 and was selected for the post of Anganwari Worker. However, neither she was issued any appointment letter nor she was allowed to join as Anganwari Worker. On 5.11.2007, when she visited the office of defendants No.2 to 5, she came to know that the defendants were re-advertising the post for which plaintiff had already been selected on 18.10.2007. Hence the necessity arose to file the instant suit.
Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 2
Upon notice, appellants appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the interview for the post of Anganwari Worker in Village Karanpur was fixed on 18.10.2007 and the said interview was finalized by the Village Level Committee along with the convener of the committee. It was further admitted that the name of the plaintiff was recommended by the Committee for the said post. However, it was clarified that the papers relating to recommendation for the Anganwari Worker for Village Karanpur had been submitted submitted in the office of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Pinjore immediately and while the papers were in the process of scrutiny, a complaint made by a lady Panch was received in the office of CDPO that proper publicity was not conducted in the village and some more candidates may have applied for the post, if informed, and therefore, the case of Saroj Bala was not sent to the higher authorities. It was further stated that as the entire village could not be informed, therefore, earlier selection process for the post was called off and it was decided that the selection process be started again. Other averments of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
In the separate written statement filed by defendants No.3 to 5, it was admitted that the plaintiff-respondent was selected for the post of Anganwari Worker.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 3
1. Whether the plaintiff has already been selected to the post of Anganwari Worker on 18.10.2007?
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the appointment letter issued for joining to the post of Anganwari Worker as claimed? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD
5. Relief.
Both the parties adduced the evidence, in support of their respective claims.
After considering the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintiff-respondent and issue No.3 in her favour. Consequently the suit was partly decreed in the following manner:-
"It is ordered that the suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are restrained from re-advertising the post of Anganwari Worker, Village Karanpur, Block Pinjore, District Panchkula and are directed to continue with the process of selection in accordance with the instruction issued by Women and Child Development, Haryana, on the basis of recommendations made vide Ex.D2. Parties shall bear their own costs."
Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal which was dismissed by Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 4 the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2010. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the First Appellate Court read thus:-
12. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the respondent-plaintiff-Saroj Bala wife of Mohan Lal applied for the post of Anganwari Worker in village Karanpur, which was advertised by the appellants-defendants. Further, the fact that the name of respondent-plaintiff was recommended for the above post, is also not disputed, regarding which the appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 made a specific averment in paragraph No.6 of the written statement. The respondent-plaintiff when appeared in the witness box as PW1 in support of her contentions made in plaint, furnished her affidavit Ex.PA to the effect that she was called for interview on 18.10.2007 and she appeared before the Board of interview as per the scheme and guidelines of the defendant No.1. After the interview the particulars and qualification etc. of the respondent-
plaintiff were considered and the defendants No.2 to 5 selected her for the post of Anganwari Worker.
13. The appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 on the other hand, took the stand that before conclusion of the selection process, the complaint made by the Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 5 lady Panch was received and after considering the said complaint it was decided to start the selection process again as the entire village was not notified about the advertised posts. Ex.D3 is the complaint of Kuldeep Kaur, lady Panch to the effect that the proper publicity had not been conducted. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff rightly argued that the witness examined by the appellants- defendants No.1 and 2 during cross examination denied the receipt of complaint Ex.D3 in their office and there is no evidence on record as to who received the complaint Ex.D3. Ex.D4 is a letter issued by the competent authority to the Programme Officers throughout the State of Haryana for stalling the selection process of the Anganwari Workers/helpers till the final orders. The said order being a general order and as no cogent evidence has been adduced by the appellants- defendants No.1 and 2 that proper publicity had not been conducted in village Karanpur justifying the cancellation of earlier selection process and conducting of the selection process again by the appellants-defendants, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court rightly observed that non- examination of the lady Panch who made the Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 6 complaint or any other aggrieved person by the appellants-defendants, it cannot be said that any right of any suitable candidate had been violated and that the complaint made by the lady Panch is not substantiated by any cogent evidence.
14. From the testimony of the respondent-plaintiff, the plea taken by the appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 in para No.2 of their written statement and from Ex.D2, the result declared by the members of the selection committee, it stands proved that the interview for the post of Anganwari Worker was held on 18.10.2007 and only thereafter, the complaint Ex.D3 had been filed, wherein also, the fact that on 18.10.2007 interview for the post of Angariwari Worker had been held, is also mentioned. Further, from the aforesaid document Ex.D2 it is also proved that the name of the respondent-plaintiff was recommended for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. As no other cogent evidence had been adduced by the appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 to prove any deficiency in the procedure of publicity carried out in the selection process for the post of Anganwari Worker and as DW1 during cross-examination admitted that the directions issued vide Ex.D4 for Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 7 stalling the further selection proceedings had been withdrawn, the learned trial Court rightly concluded that it would be in the interest of justice to proceed further with the selection procedure in view of the decision taken by the selection committee vide Ex.D2.
15. Learned trial Court in para 15 of the judgment also rightly observed that the name of the respondent-plaintiff had only been recommended, but as the recommendation does not give right to the eligible candidate for appointment and as after the recommendation of the selection committee the case of the respondent-plaintiff was to be forwarded to the higher authority for final appointment. As such, the issues No.1 and 2 were rightly decided against the respondent-plaintiff. As the same time, since no lacuna in the selection process for the post of Anganwari Worker, in which the respondent- plaintiff appeared, was found by the learned trial Court, the appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 were rightly restrained from re-advertising the post for the said post for which the name of the respondent- plaintiff had been recommended and thus, rightly decided the issue No.3 in favour of the respondent- plaintiff. At the time of final arguments, the findings Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 8 recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No.4 were not challenged and thus, the findings of the learned trial Court on the said issue are also upheld."
Still not satisfied, the State of Haryana and Circle Supervisor under ICDS Scheme have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:-
1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court are sustainable in the eyes of law?
2. Whether the administrative error cannot be corrected?
3. Whether the respondent plaintiff is entitled for selection when the post was not even properly advertised/published?
4. Whether in the interest of natural justice all do not have equal right for the selection of the above mentioned case?
In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Courts below have erred at law while not appreciating the fact that the Village Level Committee had only finalized the interview and had recommended the name of plaintiff- respondent but the selection process was not finalized. Since recommendation papers were in the process of scrutiny and a complaint was received alleging that proper publicity regarding selection of Anganwari Workers was not done, the case was sent to the higher authorities so that proper opportunity could be given to all Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 9 concerned.
It is a matter of fact that no appointment letter was issued to the plaintiff-respondent in these circumstances. It is the case of the appellants that recommendation for selection does not give any right to the candidate and the selection was stalled by the competent authority. Further, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, Programme Officers throughout the State of Haryana were directed to stall the selection process of Anganwari workers till the final orders and therefore the action of the respondents to re- advertise the post was justified.
After considering the arguments raised, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant appeal, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this Court:-
1. Whether mere recommendations were sufficient to direct the appellants to complete the process of appointment?
2. Whether mere selection give a right of appointment to the plaintiff-respondent?
At this stage, it may be noticed that the post of Anganwari Worker was offered under the Scheme of Women and Child Development with a Programme Officer in Integrated Child Development Service Cell constituting the Selection Committee. Though the State of Haryana has been made as party respondent, the appointment offered is through Integrated Child Development Service Programme and was not a civil post and the recruitment process was not governed by the rules under any statue. Kadian Savita 2014.01.08 11:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.471 of 2011 (O&M) 10
Not only this, in the instant case, the trial Court under issue No.1 and 2 has held that the plaintiff-respondent was not selected to the post of Anganwari Worker and was not entitled to the appointment and the said findings so recorded against the plaintiff- respondent were never challenged. In these circumstances, the directions as given by the trial Court restraining the appellants from re-advertising the post of Anganwari Worker cannot be sustained. Moreover, there was sufficient material before the Competent Authority not to complete the selection process as proper procedure was not adopted and it was within their competence to re-advertise the post.
In view thereof, this Court is of the view that findings of the Courts below on issue No.3 are unwarranted and the same are hereby reversed. Resultantly, the judgment and decree of the trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court restraining the appellants from re-advertising the post of Anganwari Worker are set aside, holding that the substantial questions of law as raised are answered against the plaintiff-respondent as there is no dispute with regard to settled proposition of law that mere selection does not give a right to the candidate for appointment.
Thus, the appeal is allowed. Resultantly, the suit is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
December 21, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
savita JUDGE
Kadian Savita
2014.01.08 11:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh