Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh Kang vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 17 October, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.26400 of 2013
Date of Decision:17.10.2014
Jaspal Singh Kang ... ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... ...Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab,
Mr.H.R.Nohria, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes.
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 26th August 2013 (Annexure P-3), whereby, respondents No.3 to 5 have been appointed/posted to the post of Deputy Director in the office of respondent No.2 with a further prayer directing the respondent-State to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Director as per Punjab Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Education Wing) Group 'A' Service Rules, 2001 (for brevity 'the rules') by issuing a writ of mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had joined as a Lecturer on 20th July 1994 to serve under respondents No.1 & 2. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer on 29th November PARITOSH KUMAR 2014.10.30 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.26400 of 2013 2 2000 and afterward as Head of the Department on 8th August 2008 in the same College where he taught students. Learned counsel further contends that the next promotional post from Head of Department is of Deputy Director in the office of respondent No.2. The criteria for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director has been laid down in Appendix 'A' of the rules and is to be filled up through selection amongst the Heads of Department having at least two years experience to their credit as per Appendix 'B'. The petitioner claims that selection to the post of Deputy Director is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. There is no other provision in the rules except the eligibility criteria envisaging two years experience as Head of Department and, thus, the principle of seniority cannot be over-looked by the department.
Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of letter dated 9th August 2012, the Principals of the Polytechnic Colleges and Institutes in the State of Punjab forwarded the applications/ consent letters and also their own recommendations to respondent No.2 for consideration for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner and other candidates were called for a 'meeting' amidst the competent authorities on 21st December 2012 as a vital limb of the selection process. Learned counsel urges that the eligible candidates were called only for a 'meeting', and thus, the petitioner remained in the mistaken belief that the so called 'meeting' was only formal in nature as neither any specific question was asked of him in relation to gauge aptitude for discharge of higher duties and responsibilities nor any change in process of evaluation was ever informed to the petitioner for him to meet the challenge. The petitioner prays that in the absence of any provision in the statutory rules promotion of persons junior to him in the seniority list PARITOSH KUMAR 2014.10.30 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.26400 of 2013 3 deserves to be quashed or at any rate he be accorded promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.
In the written statement filed by the State, it is pleaded that the post of Deputy Director is an ex-cadre post. As there were no criteria provided in the rules for selection to the post of Deputy Director, the Govt. decided to fill up the post by way of selection on the basis of interview giving due weightage to the Annual Confidential Reports recorded for the years prescribed. Respondents No.3 to 5 have thus rightly been promoted on the basis of the marks obtained by them at the meeting.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has produced the original record of selection which has been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing for final disposal of the matter. She has also produced a dictionary from English to Punjabi approved and printed by the Government of Punjab in which the word interview has been translated in Punjabi to mean "Mulakat". This removes the doubt of the Court with respect to the word "meeting" used in translation of the documents placed on the record of this case to mean something informal and short of the concept of an interview which may not have measured up to the standards of a full-fledged interview known in service law jurisprudence. It is now clear that "Mulakat" in Punjabi means an interview in English. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidates were called for only a meeting, which is not the same thing as an interview, has no merit calling for interference in writ jurisdiction. The challenge to the mode of selection through a mulakat or interview must necessarily fail on the foundation built.
PARITOSH KUMAR2014.10.30 16:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.26400 of 2013 4
In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a post of Deputy Director lying vacant in the Head Office, Chandigarh and his case could well be considered for promotion as per seniority cum merit. In such circumstances, the dismissal of this petition would not be read as to take away the right, if any, of the petitioner to stake a claim on such a vacancy by making a representation to the Government. In case, such a representation is made, it is expected that the decision-maker would take up the application in right earnest and make an order within reasonable time keeping in view the principle that vacancies in superior posts should not be left unmanned consistent with principles of good public administration.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
October 17, 2014 JUDGE
Paritosh Kumar
PARITOSH KUMAR
2014.10.30 16:43
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document