Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Mehar And Ors vs Devender Singh And Ors on 9 December, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Raj Mohan Singh
CWP No.3682 of 2013 & other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 09.12.2014
1. CWP No.3682 of 2013
Ram Mehar & others ......Petitioners
Versus
Devender Singh & others .....Respondents
2. CWP No.3685 of 2013
Amit Kumar & others ......Petitioners
Versus
Kuldeep Singh & others .....Respondents
3. CWP No.4002 of 2013
Jaswant Singh & others ......Petitioners
Versus
Gopal Dass Sharma & others .....Respondents
4. CWP No.4009 of 2013
Satish Kumar & others ......Petitioners
Versus
Jasvir Singh & others .....Respondents
5. CWP No.4637 of 2013
Anil Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
Devender Singh & others .....Respondents
6. CWP No.3683 of 2013
Indra Singh & others ......Petitioners
Versus
Amrit Pal Singh & others .....Respondents
MOHMED ATIK
2014.12.15 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP No.3682 of 2013 & other connected cases 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Tejpal Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.3685 of 2013.
Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.4637 of 2013.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate
for the respondent No.1 in CWP No.3682 of 2013
& CWP No.4637 of 2013.
Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in CWP No.3685 of 2013.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate &
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate
for UT Administration.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.3682, 3683, 3685, 4002, 4009 and 4637 of 2013 as all the writ petitions have arisen out of a common order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the selection to the post of Drivers in the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, has been quashed.
(2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record with their able assistance.
(3) Without referring to the facts in extenso, suffice it to mention that the Tribunal has set aside the selection of Drivers on two counts, i.e. (i) 15 MOHMED ATIK 2014.12.15 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.3682 of 2013 & other connected cases 3 marks for interview out of total 50 marks were in excess and in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia and others versus Khalid Mujib Sehravadi and others [1981 (1) SCC 722] and Ashok Kumar Yadav and others versus State of Haryana and others [1985 (4) SCC 417]; (ii) The number of general category and OBC vacancies have been filled up in excess of the advertised posts in total disregard to the settled legal position that appointment cannot be made in excess to the advertised posts.
(4) In order to appreciate the first ground assigned by the Tribunal to set aside the selection, it is useful to reproduce the criteria of selection adopted by the Selection Committee which was to the following effect:-
"i) That the criteria of selection adopted by the Department suffers no infirmity.
The criteria of selection was as under:-
Marks for dug driving test 25 marks
(qualifying marks of dug/driving
test was 12.5)
ITI Motor Mechanism 5 marks
Sports position held in State/National
Level 5 marks
Interview 15 marks
Grand total marks 50 marks"
(5) It may be seen from the above reproduced criteria that there was
no 'Written Test' held for the subject selection. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners (selected candidates) that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Hasia and others and Ashok Kumar Yadav and others cases are not applicable as it was not a case where merit- list was prepared on the basis of combined performance in written test and MOHMED ATIK 2014.12.15 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.3682 of 2013 & other connected cases 4 interview. They rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjar Ahmed versus State of Bihar, 1994 (1) SCC 150 and in Subhash Chander Verma versus State of Bihar, AIR 1995 SC 904: [1995 (1) SLR 300 (SC)] as well as Harjinder Singh Sodhi versus State of Punjab and others, JT 1996 (9) SC 443: [1997(1) SLR 187 (SC)]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Original Applicants submit that the 'Dug/Driving Test' comprising 25 marks was akin and similar to a written test, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the interview marks to the extent of 32% prescribed in the instant selection were highly excessive and contrary to the settled principles.
(6) Learned counsel for the parties, however, do not dispute the fact that the question whether the Dug/Driving Test was at part with a written test or it was only a 'skill test' based upon at the spot performance, was neither raised nor has been answered by the Tribunal vide its impugned order.
(7) As regard to the second ground which found favour with the Tribunal, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen (General or OBC) to the extent of non-availability of suitable candidates of those categories could be reverted to the candidates belonging to General Category or OBCs, as the case may be. There is, however, a counter submission to negate this plea on behalf of the learned counsel for the Original Applicants. But then this aspect too has not been expressly dealt with by the Tribunal vide its order under challenge. (8) In the light of the above, it appears to us that the entire controversy requires redetermination by the Tribunal, especially on the following issues:-
MOHMED ATIK2014.12.15 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.3682 of 2013 & other connected cases 5
(i) Whether the Dug/Driving Test was equivalent to and at par with a 'Written Test' for the purpose of attracting the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in two sets of cited decisions?
(ii) Whether the vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen (General Category or OBC) to the extent of non-
availability of suitable candidates of those categories, could be diverted and filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to General Category or OBC?
(9) There are several other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and the Original Applicants before us. Instead of taking notice of those submissions at this stage, we grant liberty to them to raise those issues before the relegated forum, so as to enable the learned Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law.
(10) Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent above. The orders under challenge dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication with specific reference to the issues mentioned above. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 27.01.2015. (11) Office to retain a photo copy of this order on the files of other connected cases.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
09.12.2014 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
MOHMED ATIK
2014.12.15 14:38
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document