Chamni Bhandari & Others vs Union Of India And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3.

The appellants herein filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.517 of 2020 questioning the action of the respondents in inviting applications, and in interviewing the applicants, for appointment on an adhoc basis.

The primary submission of Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, is that the selection process, now being undertaken, is only to fill up the posts on an adhoc basis; the appellants-writ petitioners are already working on an adhoc basis, albeit with artificial breaks; and, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana & others vs. Piara Singh & others: (1992) 4 SCC 118; State of Karnataka & others vs. Uma Devi: (2006) 4 SCC 1; and other judgments, substitution of one adhoc employee with another is arbitrary and illegal.

As has been noted by the learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal, appointment of Lecturers, in the respondent-Institution, is for a period of one year; and, at the end of each year, a fresh selection process is undertaken by inviting applications and calling candidates for interview for appointment to the posts of adhoc Lecturers. All the appellants-writ petitioners have also undergone a similar process of selection for the past several years. It is for the first time, in the present year, that they have chosen to question this process of selection being undertaken, for the past several years, by the respondent-Institution.

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners, would submit that, merely because the appellants had not questioned the process of selection in the earlier years, would not disable them from questioning it now since the illegality committed in the earlier years cannot be permitted to be perpetuated for all times to come.

In this context it must be borne in mind that the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, is extremely limited. Save cases where the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, no interference is called for since both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench exercise the very same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

As long as the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a possible view, the Division Bench would not interfere with the said order even if the other possible view, canvassed before it, appeals to it more. The learned Single Judge has non-suited the appellants-writ petitioners on the ground that a similar process of selection was undertaken each year for the past several years; and they had participated in such a selection process each year. The learned Single Judge has also adequately safeguarded the appellants-writ petitioners' interests, as they have also been permitted to participate in the process of selection now being undertaken by the respondent-Institution, and to appear in the interview. It is not as if their candidature has been rejected by the respondent-Institution.

We see no reason, in such circumstances, to interfere with the order under appeal. We, however, find force in the submission urged on behalf of the appellants-writ petitioners that, since two of them are located in containment zones in Districts Muzaffarnagar and Muradabad of the State of Uttar Pradesh, they would not be able to enter the State of Uttarakhand without having to undergo institutional quarantine for one week followed by home quarantine for two weeks; and they would be in no position to participate in the selection process, and appear for the interview, for the next three weeks.

When we asked Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, as to how the appellants-writ petitioners can be deprived of their right to participate in the selection process, and to appear in the interview, learned counsel would submit that interviews would be conducted for their benefit, through video conferencing, today at 5.00 PM; and the appellants-writ petitioners have been intimated accordingly.

In such circumstances, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that the respondent-Institution is directed to interview the appellants-writ petitioners via video conferencing facility, and finalize the selection process only after they appear and participate in the interview.

It is made clear that, in case the appellants-writ petitioners are not selected in the process of selection now being undertaken, it is always open to them to avail their judicial remedies, in which event all contentions, including those raised in the present Writ Petition, shall be open for examination in such proceedings instituted by them.

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of the prescribed charges.