Pooja Sachdeva And Another vs Haryana Vidhan Sabha And Others

,,,

Ritu Bahri, J",,,

This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing No. CWP-14218-2014, CWP-25829-2014 and CWP-16862-2014 having identical issue. However",,,

for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-14218-2014.",,,

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the result/selection of the private respondents who have been selected to the posts of Clerks on the ground of,,,

favoritism and partiality.,,,

The brief facts of the case are that 12 posts of Clerks were advertised as per the advertisement dated 16.04.2013 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners,,,

have given details of their qualification as per the certificates attached alongwith writ petition (Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 colly). The,,,

certificates of petitioner No. 1, who is M.A and M.Phil are attached as Annexure P-1 collectively and the certificates of petitioner No. 2, who is",,,

M.B.A. with 76% marks are attached as Annexure P-2 collectively. Vide letters dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-4 colly), the petitioners were called",,,

for interview on 05.02.2014 alongwith their documents i.e. original degrees, diplomas and certificates. As many as 2636 candidates appeared for",,,

interview as per the information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI'). The final result was declared on 20.05.2014 as per the",,,

RTI information given with respect to list of selected candidates (Annexure P-6). Against 12 posts of Clerks, 27 candidates have been selected. 22",,,

persons selected were already working on 89 days basis and most of them were only graduates and undergraduates. Further out of the selected,,,

candidates, 17 candidates belonged to Gannuar in District Sonepat which happened to be the Constituency of the Speaker and 5 candidates were from",,,

the Beri Constituency in District Jhajjar. Three candidates were from Pehowa Constituency. One was from Kaithal, who was close relative of Sh.",,,

Manohar Lal, Personal Assistant to Shri Harmohinder Singh Chattha, former Speaker, now Finance Minister in Government of Haryana, while one",,,

candidate was from District Karnal where Shri Kuldeep Sharma, incumbent Speaker resided.",,,

Learned counsel for the petitioners is challenging the selection on the following grounds:-,,,

That out of total 50 marks to be awarded to each candidate, there were two members in the Selection Committee and each member of the",,,

Committee has to award marks to the candidates out of 25 marks.,,,

Very less time was given at the time of interview to the candidates.,,,

Selection is biased as total 17 candidates have been selected from the constituency of one Speaker and of the former Speaker.,,,

On notice, written statement dated 28.04.2015 has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 wherein it has been clarified that 12 posts of Clerks had",,,

been advertised and 27 persons were appointed against 19 regular posts and 8 persons were appointed against the posts/vacancies which were caused,,,

by the employees who had gone on deputation to other departments/organizations as also against the posts/vacancies caused due to promotions made,,,

on the higher vacant posts/vacancies which were not regular and the services of 8 persons were liable to be terminated as and when they joined this,,,

Secretariat or such persons are reverted, as the casemay be. 8 such persons were appointed against the temporary vacancies. Names of 8 persons",,,

who were appointed against those vacancies are as under:-,,,

Smt. Sharmila Kumari,,,

Shri Sunil S/o Shri Nasib Singh,,,

Shri Ashok Kumar,,,

Shri Jagat Singh,,,

Shri Balihar Singh,,,

Shri Munish Kumar,,,

Shri Sarwan Kumar,,,

Shri Rajinder Kumar,,,

While appointing them, following condition was imposed:-",,,

a. That your above appointment is being against the posts/vacancies caused by the employees who have gone on deputation to other,,,

departments/organizations as also against the posts/vacancies caused due to promotions made on the posts/vacancies which are not regular and your,,,

services are liable to be terminated as an when they join this Secretariat or such persons are reverted, as the case may be.",,,

A copy of the appointment letter dated 20.05.2014 of one of the above mentioned 8 persons is Annexure R-1. Thereafter on joining on the posts of the,,,

persons which were on deputation to other organizations, the services of the above mentioned 8 employees/respondents had been terminated on",,,

01.04.2015 vide letters dated 01.04.2015. A copy of letter dated 01.04.2015 of one of above mentioned 8 persons is attached as Annexure R-2. As,,,

per the written statement filed, out of 27 persons, the Department had taken a decision to terminate services of 12 candidates.",,,

Hence, 15 persons are now working against 12 posts.",,,

Learned counsel for the State has handed over the entire record of the selection process in the Court.,,,

A perusal of the record shows that a decision had been taken on 04.04.2013 to advertise 12 posts of Clerk, one post of Hindi Typist, one post of",,,

Punjabi Typist and one post of Typist. Learned counsel for the State has further given original record of the selection process and contends that the,,,

Selection Committee constituting of two members had interviewed all the candidates and had given individual marks out of 25 marks and after adding,,,

the marks given by both the Committee members, the merit list had been prepared and appointment letters had been issued upto the merit of 27. The",,,

petitioners did not fall in the zone of consideration till 27 number and hence they had been rightly not given appointment letters.,,,

Mr. R.K.Malik, learned counsel for private respondents No. 5, 8, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21 and 27, while referring to written statement, has also argued that",,,

when the posts were advertised in the year 2013 and interviews were taken in the year 2014, Dr. Raghbir Kadiyan was not the Speaker and the",,,

Sr. No.,Name & address of the candidate,Roll No.,Marks obtained

1.,"Shri Vikash Chand S/o Shri Ishwar Singh, Village Naya

Bans PO Khubru, Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",944,40/50

2.,"Shri Sikender S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, VPO Purkhas Teh.

Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",1825,39/50

3.,"Shri Mukesh Kumar S/o Hukam Singh, Village Sandal

Kalan, Teh. & Distt. Sonepat",1538,38/50

4.,"Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Randhir Singh, Village

Tharu, PO Uldepur, Teh. & Distt. Sonepat",1045,38/50

5.,"Shri Anil Kumar S/o Shri Lehna Singh # 62, VPO

Ghasauli, Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",1237,37/50

6.,"Shri Rishi Pal S/o Shri Ram Kumar VPO Purkash Teh.

Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",1232,36/50

7.,"Shri Sundeep S/o Shri Ram Chander Village Kami Teh.

Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",1823,35/50

8.,"Shri Rishi Parkash S/o Shri Tej Parkash VPO Pugthala

Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",4054,34/50

9.,"Shri Surjeet Singh S/o Shri Dalel Singh, Village Samaspur

Gamra, PO Khubru Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",2895,32/50

10.,"Shri Vikas Rathee S/o Shri Jai Parkash # 295 VPO

Purkash Rathee Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",4724,31/50

11.,"Shri Yogender S/o Shri Zile Singh, VPO Kailana Teh.

Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",4526,30/50

12.,"Shri Rajdeep S/o Shri Mohender Singh, VPO Patti

Brahman, Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",3208,29/50

13.,"Shri Sunil S/o Shri Anand, VPO Sanpera, Teh. Ganaur,

Distt. Sonepat",2575,28/50

14.,"Shri Ravinder Kumar S/o Shri Baljit Singh, VPO Sanpera

Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",2528,28/50

15.,"Shri Inderjit S/o Shri Moji Ram VPO Siwana, Teh. Beri,

Distt. Jhajjar",3287,27/50

16.,"Shri Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Rishi Parkash, H. No. 246,

Village Teha, Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",4701,27/50

17.,"Shri Keshav Dutt S/o Shri Jai Kishan, VPO Pugthala,

Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",4812,27/50

18.,"Shri Sandeep S/o Shri Vakil Singh, VPO Anchla, Tehsil

Ballha, Karnal-132040",1136,27/50

19.,"Shri Bhushan Jain S/o Shri Ravinder Jain, H.No.223/11,

Krishanpura, Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat",1952,27/50

20.,"Smt. Sharmila Kumari D/o Shri Tulsi Ram, H.No. 920,

Adrash Nagar, Naya Gaon, Mohali (Punjab).",479,26/50

21.,"Shri Sunil S/o Shri Nasib Singh VPO Majra

(B) Teh. Beri District Jhajjar",2297,26/50

22.,"Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ram Phal, C/o Shri Ram

Kumar, Pana Chulyan, Ward No. 4, Muda Wali Gali,

VPO Beri, District Jhajjar.",1522,26/50

23.,"Shri Jagat Singh S/o Shri Dalip Singh VPO Dhandlan,

Tehsil Beri, Distt. Jhajjar.",477,26/50

24.,"Shri Balihar Singh S/o Sh. Amrik Singh,

V.P.O. Gumthala Garhu, Tehsil Pehowa, Distt.

Kurukshetra.",2934,25/50

25.,"Shri Munish Kumar S/o Shri Satish Kumar, Old Sabji

Mandi, Main Bazzar, Kumaran Wala Mohalla, Distt.

Kaithal",18,25/50

26.,"Shri Sarwan Kumar S/o Shri Mamu Ram VPO Kakrala

Gujran Teh. Pehowa, District Kurukshetra",4066,25/50

27.,"Shri Rajinder Kumar S/o Shri Ram Savarup, VPO

Bhateri District Kurukshetra",8,25/50

to 3120, Committee No. 3 awarded marks from roll No. 3121 to 3250, Committee No. 4 awarded marks from roll No. 3251 to 3380, Committee No. 6",,,

awarded marks from roll No. 3511 to 3640, Committee No. 7 awarded marks from roll No. 3641 to 3770, Committee No. 8 awarded marks from roll",,,

No. 3771 to 3900 and Committee No. 11 awarded marks from roll No. 4161 to 4290. On 08.02.2014, Committee No. 1 awarded marks from roll No.",,,

4291 to 4420, Committee No. 2 awarded marks from roll No. 4421 to 4550, Committee No. 3 awarded marks from roll No. 4551 to 4680 and",,,

Committee No. 4 awarded marks from roll No. 4681 to 4812.,,,

The official files also show that both the members had given individual marks to each of the candidates and each page was signed by them. The,,,

official record further shows that at the time of interivew, all the candidates who had appeared, had given their signatures on the attendance sheet and",,,

candidates who did not appear, the column of putting signature was blank. After going through the marks given by the Selection Committee which",,,

consisted of two members, the final marks of the Selection Committee was tabulated in a separate file by clubbing marks given by both the members",,,

and the final result was prepared out of 50 marks. Compiled result was signed by each member of the Committee as is evident from the official,,,

record. Hence, as far as the selection process is concerned, the Committee consisting of two members had given individual marks to each candidate",,,

out of 25 marks and after clubbing marks the result was prepared and on each paper of the result, the signature of Committee members were taken",,,

on 03.03.2014.,,,

The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not told earlier to bring their requisite documents is liable to be rejected as at the time of calling them,,,

for interview as per para Nos. iii) and iv) of the interview call letters dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-4 colly), they were asked to get their respective",,,

documents including N.O.C. if they are already employed and hence judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in Jagbir Singh's case,,,

(supra), Deepak Kumar's case (supra) and Amit Arora's case (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as from the official record, it",,,

is abundantly clear that each member of the Selection Committee had given individual marks to each candidate out of 25 marks and after clubbing,,,

marks the result was prepared and on each paper of the result, the signature of Committee members were taken on 03.03.2014. Hence, there is no",,,

reason to give a finding that the marks had been awarded after the interviews.,,,

With respect to the allegations of favoritism and partiality, reference at this stage can be made to a judgment passed by this Court in CWP-15937-",,,

2008 titled Mukesh Bala V/s. State of Haryana and others, decided on 05.03.2014 in which a Coordinate Bench was examining the selection for the",,,

post of Mutli Purpose Health Worker (Female) and the grievance of the petitioner therein was that the Selection Committee had given intentionally,,,

more marks to the candidates to whom they wanted to be selected and lesser marks had been given to those candidates whom the Selection,,,

Committee did not want to be selected irrespective of their academic marks. The Coordinate Bench rejected the argument of the petitioner that some,,,

of the selected candidates were related to respondent No. 4 who was member of the Commission. The Court held that merely because some of the,,,

selected candidates were related to member of the Commission i.e. respondent No. 4 cannot be a ground for setting aside the selection because,,,

respondent No. 4 did not participate in the process of the selection and further the selection of respondent No. 4 as member of the Commission had,,,

taken place after the interviews were over. The Coordinate Bench, while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Ashok Kumar",,,

Yadav V/s. State of Haryana, 1993(4) RSJ 73 held that merely because some of the selected candidates were related to the member of the",,,

Commission, cannot vitiate the selection process or can be a ground for setting aside their selection.",,,

Further the argument of the petititioners that in interview more marks had been given to the candidates who were favourites, is also liable to be",,,

rejected as the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and others 2014(3) S.C.T. 620 held that when the petitioner,,,

participated in the selection process knowing fully well the process, could not have resiled later on that the procedure adopted by the department was",,,

vitiated. In para 13, the Supreme Court observed as under:-",,,

“13. the next submission which has been presented before us is that when the Respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the,,,

process, they could not be resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated. In this",,,

connection, it is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 285, in the said case a",,,

three-Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the Petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition",,,

only after he realized that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ Petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High",,,

Court.,,,

Further the Supreme Court in Sajeesh Babu V/s. N.K. Santhosh and others 2012 (12) SCC 106 was examining the selection for grant of LPG,,,

distributorship by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In this case, the Selection Committee was constituted to examine the applications and while",,,

challenging the selection no MALA FIDE was attributed to any of the members of the Selection Committee and in this backdrop the Supreme Court,,,

held that it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who are more familiar with,,,

the technicalities/nature of the work and the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any",,,

allegation of MALA FIDES against the experts who had constituted the Selection Committee.,,,

In the facts of the present case, the allegation of the petitioners is that the selected candidates belonged to Constitutencies of the Speaker and of",,,

former Speaker. In the written statement filed by the private respondents, it has been clarified that even if some selected candidates belonged to the",,,

Constituencies of the Speaker and of the former Speaker, none of the selected candidates were related to them in any manner and merely because",,,

they belonged to their Constituencies cannot vitiate the selection process as held by the Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar's case (supra). Moreover,",,,

there is no personal MALA FIDE against the members of the Selection Committee. A perusal of the official record shows that both the members of,,,

the Selection Committee had awarded individual marks to each candidate out of 25 marks and they had signed the final result after clubbing the marks,,,

given by them on 03.03.2014. Hence, under no circumstances, the selection cannot be vitiated on the ground of MALA FIDE or biased as per the",,,

Ranjan Kumar's case (supra).,,,

Keeping in view above observations, writ petitions are dismissed.",,,