Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satyawan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 February, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18416 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 13, 2014
C.W.P. No.18416 of 2009
Satyawan
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.9751 of 2009
Parveen Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.12655 of 2009
Jitender Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.18664 of 2009
Parveen
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.19287 of 2009
Dhanender and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
Khurmi Rakesh
2014.02.17 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18416 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
C.W.P. No.20018 of 2009
Naveen Kumar Lamba
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.337 of 2010
Dinesh Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.2521 of 2010
Manesh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.4276 of 2010
Ajay Parmar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.5216 of 2010
Amit Kumar and another
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.6458 of 2010
Sunil Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
Khurmi Rakesh
2014.02.17 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18416 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
C.W.P. No.8658 of 2010
Satender
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
C.W.P. No.17596 of 2011
Sanjay Kumar
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Virender Pratap Singh, Advocate for
Mr. John Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate.
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate.
Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Tara Chand, Advocate.
Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate.
Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate.
Mr. B.K.Bakri, Advocate.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. Mahesh Sangwan, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
(in C.W.P. No.4276 of 2010)
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
By this order, I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.18416, 9751, 12655, 18664, 19287, 20018 of 2009, 337, 2521, 4276, 5216, 6458, 8658 of 2010 and 17596 of 2011, where selection to the posts of Canal Guards in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.7.2008 has Khurmi Rakesh 2014.02.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18416 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:
been questioned.
During the pendency of the writ petition, initially vide order dated 28.8.2010, certain observations were made by this Court, pointing out irregularities therein. The Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, Irrigation Department and the Superintending Engineer-cum-Chairman of the Selection Committee, Bhiwani-respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively were directed to examine the infirmities as were noticed in the order and to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 8.9.2010. On the said date, the Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, Irrigation Department, forthrightly conceded that there were some serious infirmities in the selection and appointment, which need to be rectified. The Court thereafter give a free hand to the Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, to consider whether the whole selection would stand vitiated and if there would be a need to carry out a fresh selection. An option was also given if the mistakes could be rectified and thereafter proceed to finalise the selection list.
In the light of this order passed by this Court, the Principal Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, Irrigation Department, went into the whole gamut of factual aspect and came out with a final report in the form of additional affidavit dated 26.11.2010. On the basis of the said affidavit, some candidates, who had earlier been found to be ineligible or wrongly selected and others who had been found to have been rightly selected but removed from service were given notices for removal and the others were sought to be appointed.
Some of the counsel for the petitioners have now pointed out Khurmi Rakesh 2014.02.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18416 OF 2009 :{ 5 }:
that even in the additional affidavit dated 26.11.2010, which has now been filed, there are still infirmities in the compilation of marks and because of this compilation, there are certain mistakes, which need to be rectified. Some other grounds have also been raised with regard to selection process.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases and in the light of various orders, which have been passed by this Court, this Court is of the view that the appropriate authority for looking into the grievance, if any, of the petitioners would be the Principal Secretary-cum- Financial Commissioner, Irrigation Department, and, thus, the aggrieved petitioners shall file a detailed representation, highlighting therein their objections/grievances within a period of six weeks from today. If such a representation is made by the petitioners within the above-mentioned time, the same shall be considered and decided by the Principal Secretary-cum- Financial Commissioner, Irrigation Department, within a further period of 12 weeks by passing a speaking order. Decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioners forthwith.
With the above observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
February 13, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
khurmi JUDGE
Khurmi Rakesh
2014.02.17 10:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document