Manoj Kumar vs Haryana State Electricity Board and Another

G.S. Singhvi, Act. C.J.—This is a petition for quashing the selection and appointments of Meter Readers made in pursuance of advertisement Annexure P. 1 issued by the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short, the Board).

The petitioner had applied in pursuance of Annexure P.1. his candidature was considered by the Selection Committee constituted at Rohlak. His name did not figure in the list of selected candidates. He has challenged the impugned selection and appointments by stating that as many as 400 candidates were selected against 165 advertised posts and different Distt. Selection Committees had adopted different criterias for selecting the candidates.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, a specific objection has been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e, the candidates appointed on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that district-wise selection is per se contrary to the doctrine of equality, inasmuch as less meritorious candidates were selected leaving out more meritorious candidates of other districts. He further argued that selection of candidates more than twice the number of advertised posts is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prem Singh and Others Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and Others, .

I have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. In my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because even if the argument of the learned counsel on the legality of the procedure adopted by the Selection Committees constituted by Board for recruitment of Meter Readers is accepted, no effective relief can be given to the petitioner because none of the selected candidates has been impleaded as party respondent. In Prabodh Verma and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, and State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh AIR 2000 S.C. 2036, it has been held that the candidates, whose appointments are challenged, are necessary parties and if they are not impleaded as respondents the Court cannot quash the appointments.

By applying the ratio of the afore-mentioned decisions, I hold that the writ petition suffers from the fatal defect of non-joinder of necessary parties.

Hence the writ petition is dismissed.

It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to act as intervener in CWP No. 6264 of 1994 in which selection and appointments of meter Readers have been challenged and the selected candidate have been impleaded as party respondents.