In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 14846 of 2016 (O&M)
Reserved on: March 09, 2017
Date of Decision: March 22, 2017
Kuldeep Nara
... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Public Service Commission and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ravi Partap, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate, or respondent No.5.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
P.B. Bajanthri, J.
In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of the result for the posts of Lecturer / Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of Physical Education and further sought for quashing the selection and appointment of respondents no. 3 to 8.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was unsuccessful candidate. He has questioned the selection and appointment of respondents no. 3 to 8 on the score that HPSC have modified the method (criteria) of inviting candidates who have passed in screening test to interview to the extent 3 times to 6 times which was on the date of announcing the screening test result, namely, 28.02.2012. Such modification of selection criteria in the
midstream of the selection process is contrary to Supreme Court's
decision. Because HPSC adopted new criteria, therefore, respondents no.3 to 8 who have been called for interview with reference to 6 times and they are within the zone of consideration. Had HPSC adopted 3 times criteria for interview, respondents no. 3 to 8 would not have been within the zone of consideration for interview. Hence, their selection and appointment are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Supreme Court's decision.
It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that 7th respondent has been favoured by HPSC, 2nd respondent awarding 5 marks in excess to the qualification possessed by 7th respondent to the extent she has passed NET/SLET, thus, awarded of 5 marks is not deserved to be given in absence of qualification. Therefore, on this count also, 7th respondent's selection and appointment is liable to be set aside. Said contention has been admitted by HPSC in their reply statement. Consequently, they have
taken a decision to reduce 7th respondent's marks from 70 to 65
marks and further it was contended by HPSC that both the petitioner
and 7th respondent have secured 65 marks, since 7th respondent is
older age than the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
In view of above facts and circumstances, petitioner has
been made out a prima facie case to interfere with the selection and
appointment of respondents no.3 to 8 to the post of Lecturer /
Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of Physical
Education is hereby set aside. It was noticed that other selected and
appointed candidates merit would fall under 3 times of number of
advertised vacancies for each category of the posts for interview.
Therefore, respondent no.1 – HPSC is hereby directed to re-do the
selection process insofar as petitioner is concerned from the date of
announcement of screening test result to the extent of inviting 3
times of number of advertised vacancies for each category of the
posts would be for interview. The above process shall be completed
and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, necessary selection and
appointment order be issued to him within a period of three months
from today. It is made clear that petitioner’s appointment would be
notionally from the date of others were appointed pursuant to
advertisement dated 28.10.2009.
Public Service Commission is an institution of utmost importance created by the constitution and for efficient functioning of a democracy, it is imperative that Public Service Commission are
manned by people of the highest skill and irreproachable integrity, so that selections to various posts can be immunized from all sorts of extraneous factors like political pressure or personal favouritism and are made solely on consideration of merit.
Having regard to the conduct of the 1st respondent – HPSC in the process of selection to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of Physical Education that they have played fraud in the selection process being a constitutional body. Hence, they are liable for exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakhs. Cost shall be remitted in the account of Gandhi Vanita Ashram, Jalandhar. Cost shall be remitted within a period of 6 months and the same be
reported in the Registry of this Court. Amount is to be utilized only
for infrastructure under the supervisory of Member Secretary of
Legal Service Authority, District Court, Jalandhar. The State Government is hereby directed to hold a preliminary enquiry through
a senior officer of the Principal Secretary level and if prima facie
case is made out against officials of the HPSC including Secretary of
HPSC at the relevant point of time, initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the officials of the HPSC after giving ample opportunity to
each of the officials who are all involved and proceed in accordance
with law. Such action be completed within a period of 6 months from
today.
Perusal of records it is evident that examination and selection results were notified only with roll numbers. Candidates who intend to challenge any result are facing difficulty and due to non-providing of names of those candidates who have cleared examination and who have been selected for any public post. Therefore, in order to meet transparency HPSC has to reveal names of those who have cleared in the examination and marks obtained by each one of them and further in publishing select list also names and marks secured by each one of them be notified in future in respect of future recruitments.
Instant writ petition stands allowed, petitioner is entitled to cost of Rs.25,000/-. First respondent – HPSC is liable to pay within three months from today.
[P.B. Bajanthri]
Judge
March 22, 2017
C.W.P. No. 14846 of 2016 (O&M)
Reserved on: March 09, 2017
Date of Decision: March 22, 2017
Kuldeep Nara
... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Public Service Commission and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ravi Partap, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate, or respondent No.5.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.7.
P.B. Bajanthri, J.
In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of the result for the posts of Lecturer / Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of Physical Education and further sought for quashing the selection and appointment of respondents no. 3 to 8.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was unsuccessful candidate. He has questioned the selection and appointment of respondents no. 3 to 8 on the score that HPSC have modified the method (criteria) of inviting candidates who have passed in screening test to interview to the extent 3 times to 6 times which was on the date of announcing the screening test result, namely, 28.02.2012. Such modification of selection criteria in the
midstream of the selection process is contrary to Supreme Court's
decision. Because HPSC adopted new criteria, therefore, respondents no.3 to 8 who have been called for interview with reference to 6 times and they are within the zone of consideration. Had HPSC adopted 3 times criteria for interview, respondents no. 3 to 8 would not have been within the zone of consideration for interview. Hence, their selection and appointment are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Supreme Court's decision.
It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that 7th respondent has been favoured by HPSC, 2nd respondent awarding 5 marks in excess to the qualification possessed by 7th respondent to the extent she has passed NET/SLET, thus, awarded of 5 marks is not deserved to be given in absence of qualification. Therefore, on this count also, 7th respondent's selection and appointment is liable to be set aside. Said contention has been admitted by HPSC in their reply statement. Consequently, they have
taken a decision to reduce 7th respondent's marks from 70 to 65
marks and further it was contended by HPSC that both the petitioner
and 7th respondent have secured 65 marks, since 7th respondent is
older age than the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
In view of above facts and circumstances, petitioner has
been made out a prima facie case to interfere with the selection and
appointment of respondents no.3 to 8 to the post of Lecturer /
Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of Physical
Education is hereby set aside. It was noticed that other selected and
appointed candidates merit would fall under 3 times of number of
advertised vacancies for each category of the posts for interview.
Therefore, respondent no.1 – HPSC is hereby directed to re-do the
selection process insofar as petitioner is concerned from the date of
announcement of screening test result to the extent of inviting 3
times of number of advertised vacancies for each category of the
posts would be for interview. The above process shall be completed
and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, necessary selection and
appointment order be issued to him within a period of three months
from today. It is made clear that petitioner’s appointment would be
notionally from the date of others were appointed pursuant to
advertisement dated 28.10.2009.
Public Service Commission is an institution of utmost importance created by the constitution and for efficient functioning of a democracy, it is imperative that Public Service Commission are
manned by people of the highest skill and irreproachable integrity, so that selections to various posts can be immunized from all sorts of extraneous factors like political pressure or personal favouritism and are made solely on consideration of merit.
Having regard to the conduct of the 1st respondent – HPSC in the process of selection to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor (College Cadre) in the subject of Physical Education that they have played fraud in the selection process being a constitutional body. Hence, they are liable for exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakhs. Cost shall be remitted in the account of Gandhi Vanita Ashram, Jalandhar. Cost shall be remitted within a period of 6 months and the same be
reported in the Registry of this Court. Amount is to be utilized only
for infrastructure under the supervisory of Member Secretary of
Legal Service Authority, District Court, Jalandhar. The State Government is hereby directed to hold a preliminary enquiry through
a senior officer of the Principal Secretary level and if prima facie
case is made out against officials of the HPSC including Secretary of
HPSC at the relevant point of time, initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the officials of the HPSC after giving ample opportunity to
each of the officials who are all involved and proceed in accordance
with law. Such action be completed within a period of 6 months from
today.
Perusal of records it is evident that examination and selection results were notified only with roll numbers. Candidates who intend to challenge any result are facing difficulty and due to non-providing of names of those candidates who have cleared examination and who have been selected for any public post. Therefore, in order to meet transparency HPSC has to reveal names of those who have cleared in the examination and marks obtained by each one of them and further in publishing select list also names and marks secured by each one of them be notified in future in respect of future recruitments.
Instant writ petition stands allowed, petitioner is entitled to cost of Rs.25,000/-. First respondent – HPSC is liable to pay within three months from today.
[P.B. Bajanthri]
Judge
March 22, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment