Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Santokh Kumari Sandhu vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1710 of 2012
Date of decision: 8th October, 2012
Dr. Santokh Kumari Sandhu
Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following relief:
"a writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued for quashing the impugned selection/appointment of respondent No.3 and action of the respondents No.1 & 2 vide which they have selected ineligible candidate by ignoring the fully eligible & experienced candidate i.e. petitioner, just for the reason that the respondent No.3 has political approach of ruling party in the State of Haryana.
further writ in the nature of Mandamus be also issued for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Director Sport, Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, Murthal, District Sonepat being fully eligible & experienced person for the post of Director Sports in all respect."Civil Writ Petition No.1710 of 2012 2
As per the averments made in this writ petition, one post of Director Sports in the pay-scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 was advertised by the respondents on 28th August, 2009, along with other posts in Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, Murthal, District Sonepat. The following criteria was laid down for the said post:
"Qualification and Experience:
1. A 1st or 2nd Class Master's Degree in the Physical Education.
2. 10 Years experience or Organizing Sports and Campus at University or College level.
3. Outstanding Sportsman with Good achievements at least in the national and inter University in recognized games by the University will be given preference."
According to the averments made, respondent No.3 who has been selected for the said post and has been appointed vide appointment letter dated 11th February, 2010 (Annexure P-2), was not having requisite ten years' experience of organizing sports at campus of the University or College level and as per his experience certificate, he was having teaching experience in one particular game i.e. Basketball and had no experience of organizing sports either at campus of the University or College level, and thus, was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
It is the further case of the petitioner that though the Screening Committee was also doubtful whether the experience of respondent No.3 with Sports Authority of India as a Coach is to be considered or not, but still he was selected by ignoring the more experienced and fully eligible candidate i.e. the petitioner.
Civil Writ Petition No.1710 of 2012 3
According to the petitioner, she is working with respondents as a Director Physical Education since 1993 in the scale of Associate Professor and even the scale of Professor is due to her since the year 2011 and is under consideration. She was having ten years' experience as required and was doing the same work at the same place for which the post in question is meant. Moreover, she has given in writing along with her application that if given an opportunity on the post of Director Sports, she was ready to take the responsibility of present post i.e. Director Physical Education as well. However, her claim has been ignored just because respondent No.3 has a political approach, and thus, the selection of respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as the documents placed on record of this case.
At the outset, it may be mentioned that though respondent No.3 was appointed on 11th February, 2010 and the said appointment of respondent No.3 was to the knowledge of the petitioner, yet the petitioner has failed to approach this Court immediately and has chosen to file the instant writ petition after a lapse of about 2 ½ years, without explaining the delay and laches, as aforesaid.
It may further be seen that though the petitioner has placed on record many certificates to show that she has an experience of ten years of organizing sports/seminars etc. at Campus/College level, yet a perusal of the aforesaid documents would show that the petitioner has hardly any such experience of organizing sports/seminars as all the certificates produced before this Court. Barring one or two certificates, all other certificates placed Civil Writ Petition No.1710 of 2012 4 on record are regarding participation of the petitioner in such sports/seminars organized by others.
It may further be seen that the petitioner has also relied upon the certificates (Annexures P-53 to P-55) to show that she has organized Annual Sports and Athletics meets held in Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology and has participated as a delegate of Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, Murthal, District Sonepat in the one day National Seminar on 'Sports, State & Society' organized by the Department of Physical Education, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and in two weeks AICTE sponsored Faculty Development Programme; but the same are of the year 2011 i.e. long after the selection of respondent No.3.
Moreover, the Screening Committee of the respondent- University, after considering all the facts and circumstances, has held the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 eligible for the post in question and has recommended selection of respondent No.3. It is not the case of the petitioner that except as argued above, there was any other procedural error apparent on record in the selection process adopted.
At this stage, it may also be noticed that though the petitioner has averred that she had competed for the post in question, however, a reference to the letter (Annexure P-6) allegedly attached by the petitioner along with her application clearly shows that she had not applied for the post in question in the manner prescribed, as in clear words she had stated in the said letter that her application for appointment to the post of Director Sports be considered as an application applied not under the direct recruitment but on the basis of deputation to the said post in additional to the post already held by her. It may further be seen that according to her Civil Writ Petition No.1710 of 2012 5 own averments, the petitioner is already working as Director Physical Education in a much higher pay-scale than the pay-scale as advertised for the post in question.
A further perusal of Annexure P-57 would show that in fact there seems to be a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 for allocation of work by the respondent-University and nothing else.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE October 8, 2012 rps