AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—Petitioner Ku. Dindeshwari Jagat has participated in the recruitment of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Public Health Engineering whereas other petitioners have applied in the Department of Public Works. The matter pertains to recruitment of Sub Engineers by the Department of Public Works, Department of Water Resources, Department of Public Health Engineering, Chhattisgarh Housing Board and Chhattisgarh Police Housing Board in a common recruitment examination. Initially, different advertisements were issued by all the departments, but a common examination was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (VYAPAM) and the result of the examination was declared on 5.2.2013. After declaration of the result, all the successful candidates including the petitioners were required to participate in the joint counseling for which they were required to submit a document indicating their preference for appointment in a particular department. Based on the preference, Ku. Dindeshwari Jagat applied for Public Health Engineering Department whereas other petitioners applied for Public Works Department. In course of counseling, their candidature has been refused on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 21.12.2012, they have not cleared the qualifying examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that one Miss Kranti Khandekar was issued mark sheet of qualifying examination on 5th March, 2013 whereas petitioner Ku. Poornima Singh was issued mark sheet on 19.2.2013, yet Miss Khandekar has been appointed in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board whereas Poornima Singh has been refused appointment. They would further submit that similarly Renuka Patil, Rajendra Prasad Singh and Lalita Khunte have been appointed in the Department of Water Resources even though they have also been issued mark sheet in the month of March, 2013. They would thus submit that the petitioners have been discriminated in the matter of appointment offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They have also relied on additional document (Annexure-D/1) filed in WP(S) No. 1790/2013 wherein Department of Public Works has already issued a communication for reconsideration of the cases of the petitioners.
Learned State counsel would submit that in case cut off date is not mentioned in the advertisement, the last date of submission of application form is the relevant date for acquiring eligibility qualification. Therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. He would also submit that the document Annexure-D/1 is a communication on the basis of assurance made by the Hon''ble Minister which cannot be treated as order of the State Government.
Before proceeding to deal with the issue based on the obtaining facts, this Court would remind itself the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgments.
In the matter of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , it has been held thus:-
Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Arts. 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Arts. 14 and 16.
In the matter of Om Prakash Sud and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, the following has been laid down in para-17:-
"Equality before the law" or "equal protection of the laws" within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India means absence of any arbitrary discrimination by the law or in their administration. No undue favour to one or hostile discrimination to another should be shown. A classification is reasonable when it is not an arbitrary selection but rests on differences pertinent to the subject in respect of which the classification is made. The classification permissible must be based on some real and substantial distinction, a just and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis...(see The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, ). The classification must not be arbitrary but be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the law. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others, and (2) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them.
In the matter of Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , it has been held thus:-
...While it is true that the administrative or quasi-judicial authority clothed with the power of selection and appointment ought to be left unfettered in adaptation of procedural aspect but that does not however mean and imply that the same would be made available to an employer at the cost of fair play, good conscience and equity.
In the case in hand, various departments who participated in the selection process issued their separate advertisements, however, a common examination was held and based on result of the said examination wherein common merit list was prepared, the successful candidates were directed to appear in the joint counseling conducted between 12-15th March, 2013. Had it been a case that after issuance of separate advertisements but on the basis of common examination separate counseling was held for each of the department, equality clause may not be attracted. However, after holding common examination, all the candidates were directed to participate in the joint counseling conducted by all the departments in one place between 12-15 March, 2013. Not only this, successful candidates were directed to fill up the form in which they were required to indicate their preference of the department in which they wished to be appointed. It is because of this, doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would come into play because such similarly placed candidates who submitted preference for the Department of Water Resources and CG Housing Board have been appointed, but the petitioners have been denied appointment because their first preference was Department of Public Works or Department of Public Health Engineering. If all the candidates would have been informed in advance that those candidates who have cleared qualifying examination after the last date of submission of application form will not be entitled to participate in the counseling, no such candidates would have been appointed, but having allowed similarly placed candidates to participate and having appointed them after counseling, the respondent Department cannot turn back and refuse appointment on the ground that they have acquired qualification after the last date of submission of application form. Moreover, when affected candidates raised their grievance, the Hon''ble Minister of Public Works, Government of Chhattisgarh opined that dispute has arisen because of faulty advertisement for which candidates should not be made to suffer when posts of Sub Engineers are lying vacant in the Department.
In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that while appointing similarly placed candidates in the Department of Water Resource and refusing appointment to the petitioners in the department of Public Health Engineering and Public Works Department, the respondents have offended doctrine of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment as per their preference submitted in course of counseling. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider their cases for appointment in accordance with their preference and merit position, subject to fulfilling all other eligibility conditions. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.