Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neeraj Kumar And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 6 July, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CWP No.12487 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12487 of 2012(O&M)
Date of decision: 6.7.2012
Neeraj Kumar and others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula advertised 1000 posts of Assistant Linemen vide advertisement No.01/2011 dated 19.3.2011 (Annexure P-1). Later on through Corrigendum dated 7.4.2011 and 1.7.2011 the aforesaid posts of Assistant Linemen were enhanced to 4131 posts, for Uttar Haryana and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited.
The petitioners who are stated to be duly qualified for the aforesaid posts of Assistant Lineman applied in response to the said advertisement. The respondent-Commission decided to short-list the candidates for interview on the basis of their academic qualification vide notice dated 12.4.2012 attached as Annexure P-2 with this writ petition. Even the call letters were issued to such short-listed candidates by the Commission. Since the petitioners did not receive call letters as their names do not figure in the short-listed candidates, they have filed the instant writ petition challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents.
In this petition, the action of respondent-Authorities of CWP No.12487 of 2012 2 shortlisting the candidates on the basis of their academic qualification (Annexure P-2) is under challenge. In support of their case, it has been submitted before this Court that normally in all the appointments of different posts, the appointing Authorities are conducting written test for shortlisting the candidates. Even on earlier occasions, the respondent-Commission had adopted the procedure of written test for shortlisting the candidates, but this time for the post of Assistant Lineman, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula, has adopted a new policy of shortlisting the candidates on the basis of academic qualification without mentioning the same in the advertisement. It has been further stated that the act of the Commission is in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement. In para No.9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that in the advertisement, the Commission has mentioned that it may short-list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination and thus, the action of the Commission is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also relied upon a judgment dated 18.2.1997 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure P-4).
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the various documents placed on record of the writ petition as well as the impugned notice (Annexure P-2) and the judgment (Annexure P-4).
It is relevant to refer to the special instructions as referred to in the advertisement Annexure P-1 which reads thus:
"The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview. The Commission may short list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a CWP No.12487 of 2012 3 rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates, mode of, and criteria for selection etc. will be final and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or correspondence will be entertained in this regard."
The aforesaid special instructions, as mentioned in the advertisement itself, falsifies the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as alleged in para No.9 of the writ petition. It has been categorically stated in the advertisement that the Commission may short- list the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rationale criterion to be adopted by the Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further failed to show any legal bar against the respondents for switching over to shortlisting of candidates on the basis of academic qualification instead of written examination.
It may also be noticed at this stage that minimum cut of percentage for each category as prescribed vide Annexure P-2 has not been challenged by the petitioners in any manner. In fact, no worthwhile argument has been raised to challenge the said minimum cut of percentage for each category. It is not the case of the petitioners that any candidate having lesser marks than the petitioners have been called for interview.
It may also be relevant to mention that total number of 4131 posts of Assistant Linemen have been advertised and thus, it cannot be disputed that there may be thousands of candidates who have applied for the said posts and therefore, no exception can be taken to the procedure CWP No.12487 of 2012 4 adopted by the respondents. The judgment dated 18.2.1997 (Annexure P-
4) does not in any manner bars the respondent-Authorities to adopt such a procedure as done in the instant case.
In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the procedure adopted by the respondent-Authorities to short-list the candidates.
Thus, there is no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
July 06, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE