Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 October, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.21790 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21790 of 2013
Date of Decision: 11 Oct, 2013
Sukhdev Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The claim of the petitioner in this petition is for appointment to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer (Hindi) against advertisement No.5 of 1991 following his selection on 23.02.1992. The name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment in the Department of Town & Country Planning, Haryana. The recommendations were made by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board in a recruitment process initiated after advertisement calling applications from eligible candidates. The Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana, Chandigarh wrote to the petitioner on 17.08.1993 that before appointment letter is issued, the petitioner was required to go through the process of character verification and proforma character certificates were enclosed to be filled and sent with four passport photographs to the Department within a week of the issuance Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21790 of 2013 -2- of the letter. It is averred in the petition that the certificates were duly submitted. However, no date is mentioned nor any proof shown in support of the averment. The petitioner sat back till 2007 when he served legal notice calling upon the respondent-Department to issue appointment letter to the petitioner failing which legal action would be initiated. In this notice, it is stated that the petitioner wrote request letters on 27.12.1993, 20.10.1994, 11.03.1998, 16.09.2003 and 18.06.2007 but no action was taken thereon. It was pointed out in the legal notice that due to economic difficulties and family circumstances, legal recourse could not taken nor any court action brought claiming appointment.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission which was the erstwhile Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana responded to the legal notice on 19.09.2007 informing the petitioner that the Commission only recommends names of selected candidates but for appointments, the Department concerned is to be contacted. The Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana, Chandigarh on being approached informed the petitioner vide letter dated 16.11.2007 that the name of the petitioner was received in the Department on 12.05.1993 along with others but before appointments could be offered, it was found that the Department service rules contained a provision of knowledge of both Hindi and English in short hand typing for Junior Scale Stenographers. Consequently, a request was made to the Government for waiver of condition but the Government vide letter dated 06.09.1993 did not grant relaxation in service rules. As a result, the name of the petitioner was sent back to the Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana vide letter dated 21.10.1993. Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21790 of 2013 -3-
It appears from record obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 and appended with the petition that the Secretary, Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana wrote to the Director, Agriculture Department, Haryana on 23.02.1994 pointing out that the petitioner has not been medically examined and no special inquiry into his antecedents has been made. However, a request was made for issuance of appointment orders in that Department. The Director, Agriculture, Haryana wrote back to the Board that there was no vacant post of Backward Class on which the petitioner could be appointed. This letter is dated 02.05.1994. This correspondence was obtained by the petitioner from the orders passed by the first appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Armed with this correspondence, the petitioner served a legal notice on 06.08.2008 calling upon the Department of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula to offer appointment to the petitioner. When no action was taken on the legal notice, the petitioner approached this Court through CWP No.21486 of 2008. The Division Bench of this Court without going into the merits of the case directed the respondents to take cognizance of the legal notice dated 06.08.2008 and to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order was presented. If the claim of the petitioner was found meritorious and was decided in his favour then the benefit accruing to him shall be disbursed within two weeks thereafter. The directions were issued on 22.12.2008. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission passed order dated 25.02.2009 disclosing that the successor-in-interest/Commission had recommended his name twice, once to the Department of Town & Country Planning and then Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21790 of 2013 -4- to the Agriculture Department, Haryana but both times the name of the petitioner was returned in 1994 on ground of non-availability of the post of meant for the reserved Backward Class Category. Neither was his application nor any document available on the Commission's record being a case more than 14 years old. It was also observed that the petitioner had not taken up the matter with the Haryana Staff Selection Commission during these years. Therefore, the claim was highly belated and even the validity of the selection list became defunct on expiry of one year from the date recommendation. The claim was rejected in a separate order issued by the Director, Agriculture, Haryana dated 13.03.2009. His claim was not found justified and no action by the Department was called for. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged in unnecessary repeated correspondence with the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana.
I have heard Dr. Surya Parkash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length and have perused the documents on record with his assistance.
Against an advertisement issued in 1991 the petitioner was selected and his name recommended twice unsuccessfully to two different departments of the Government ending 1994. The reason for not offering appointment as seen from the letter dated 16.11.2007 is that service rules did not permit a Junior Scale Stenographer who did not have knowledge both in Hindi and English in short hand/ typing. A request was made to Government for waiver of condition vide letter dated 06.09.1993 but Government did not accord relaxation in service rules. This order was communicated to the petitioner in 2007 which has not been challenged even Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.21790 of 2013 -5- though it gave rise to a cause of action. The petitioner has challenged only the order dated 02.09.2009 (P-10) rejecting his request for appointment. Even that order is sought to be challenged belatedly after four years of the claim, if any, of the petitioner which had been rendered infructuous two decades ago. It has been repeatedly held that mere selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The claim in the present petition suffers from delay and laches and is also barred by limitation. This Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner at this distance of time.
Consequently, this writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine as not warranting admission to regular hearing.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 11.10.2013 JUDGE manju Mittal Manju 2013.10.11 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh