Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of notification dated 10.02.2015, official respondents commenced the process of selection and appointment to the posts of Technical Director in HPUs on 30.05.2016. There was internal correspondence between the Government, UHBVNL and DHBVNL and relevant data have been collected in the month of October 2016 by the official respondents. Due to pendency of CWP No. 6284 of 2016 filed by Sh. J.B. Mudgal, selection process was not finalized. This Court noticed on 22.02.2017 with reference to affidavit of Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Power Department that matter relating to filling up of Technical Director's posts was under process and it is pending consideration and the 7 of 30 same has not been finalized in view of pendency of CWP No. 6284 of 2016. These factual aspects were taken note of by this Court and directed the official respondents to complete the process of selection and appointment to the post of Director Technical before 28.02.2017 and to produce order of appointment on 01.03.2017. Instead of complying the interim direction dated 22.02.2017 read with notification dated 10.02.2015, official respondents have circumvented interim direction and pendency of litigation like CWP No. 6284 of 2016 and present petition, proceeded to issue fresh procedure to fill up Technical Director's post by replacing 10.02.2015 notification vide notification dated 24.02.2017. Once the process of selection to a particular post has already commenced with reference to existing rules/executing orders and procedure, selecting authority cannot amend or change the procedure in the midst of selection process. Undisputedly, in the present case, process of selection to the Technical Director post is with reference to procedure dated 10.02.2015 and it has commenced on 30.05.2016 as it is evident from the affidavit read with record. The official respondents have not disclosed their mind that there is proposal to replace notification dated 10.02.2015 insofar as the procedure to fill up Technical Director's posts even on 22.02.2017 the date on which this Court has directed the official respondents to complete the process of selection to the posts of Technical Director. Replacing notification dated 10.02.2015 is only on 24.02.2017 i.e. subsequent to 22.02.2017 the date on which this Court directed them to complete the process of selection. Thus, there is clear violation of interim direction in order to overcome interim direction and to accommodate 6th respondent.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

14. Core issue in the present petition is whether post of Technical Director is required to be filled up with reference to notification dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P/1) or notification dated 24.02.2017 (Annexure A-1).

15. Petitioner's contention is that process to fill up post of Technical Director was in vogue as on 30.05.2016 necessary material have already been collected through HPUs like particulars of eligible Chief Engineers of HPUs. Therefore, in the midst of selection process official respondents cannot resort to new procedure by replacing notification dated 10.02.2015 by issuing notification dated 24.02.2017. As on 22.02.2017 the date on which interim direction was issued by this Court to complete the selection process by 28.02.2017 and report the same on 01.03.2017, therefore, issuance of notification dated 24.02.2017 to fill up post of Technical Director would be for future vacancies and not the vacancies which were already existing between 10.02.2015 to 24.02.2017 for which process of selection has already commenced. In support of this contention, petitioner's counsel relied on Y.V. Rangaiah's case (supra) is applicable, so also K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 (Para 18) and 13 of 30 Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 (Paras 14 and 15).

Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra's case (supra) in para nos. 14 and 15 held as under:-

"14. It is an admitted position that at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut-off marks for viva voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration of the Court is whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. This Court notices that in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 the question posed for consideration of this Court in the instant petitions was considered and answered in the following terms: (SCC pp. 526-27, para

33) "33. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written 17 of 30 examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview."