Roshan Lal vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.—By this judgment, we dispose of as many as four writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. No. 78 of 1999 Roshan Lal v. State oCHaryana and others, C.W.P. No. 1044 of 1999 Vinod Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and others, C.W.P. No. 6712 of 1999 Rajen-der Singh v. State of Haryana etc. and C.W.P. No. 17871 of 1998 Laik Singh v. State of Haryana and others, as in our opinion all these four writ petitions can be disposed of by one judgment. Moreover, common question of law and fact is involved in these four writ petitions. Facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 78 of 1999.

Shri Roshan Lal, petitioner, has given challenge to the selection made by respondent No. 2 against the post of Learner Binders and has made a prayer that writ in the nature of certiorari be issued by quashing the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 to 14 and suitable directions may also be issued in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Learner Binder as he was fully eligible.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he is Matriculate and has successfully completed 2 yeas Ap-prenticeship training in the Trade of book- binding conducted by National Council for Vocational Training, Ministry of , Government of India w.e.f. 4.3.1991 to 3.3.1993. He passed the Practical Trade Test held in May, 1993 in the trade of Book-binding conducted by National Council for Vocational Training. He worked for five years as Book-binder with leading printing and stationery firms of the Northern region. Departmem of Printing and Stationery, Haryana, sent a requisition to the Employment Exchanges for the purpose of making appointments against the five posts of Learner Binder. Advertisement to this ef-fect was also published in Dainik Tribune, Chandigarh. As per the advertisement, the candidates must possess knowledge of Hindi up to 8th standard; experience of one year of preliminary binding work and the candidates should have passed the practical test. The petitioner being fully eligible for the post, applied well in time, appending therewith copies of the certificates. About 700 candidates out of 2200/2300 candidates, appeared for interview on 12.8.1998. The interview commenced at 2.00 P.M. and continued up to 5.00 P.M. On the following day, the interview also took place from 10.00A.M. to 1.00P.M. According to the petitioner, the entire process of selection was a farce and a formality. About 700 candidates were interviewed in a period of 6 hours. The petitioner was also interviewed by the Selection Committee. Respondent-Director, on the basis of the selection list made appointments of respondent Nos. 3 to 14, who, even do not possess the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement. They simply supplied the experience certificates. It is also the case of the petitioner that the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 to 14 was against the requisite qualifications advertised in the advertisement and in these circumstances, their appointment is illegal and arbitrary. It was also the case of the petitioner that out of the selected candidates some candidates are the favourites of the high-ups.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and it was pleaded by them that no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner. The selection was made on merit basis by re- spondent No. 2, keeping in view of the test report of the Departmental Selection Committee comprising of three officers of the Department. No legal right has accrued to the petitioner. It was pleaded that 528 applications were received through the advertisement in the newspaper and employment exchanges. 323 candidates appeared for interview/practical test. 209 candidate appeared on 12.8.1998 and remaining 114 candidates appeared on 13.8.1998. Interview-practical test was conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee constituted by respondent No. 2 comprising of three officers of the Department i.e. Deputy Controller, Administrative Officer, Printing and Stationery Department and Manager, Govt. Text Books Press, Panchkula from 11.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 12.8.1998 and 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 13.8.1998. The petitioner was interviewed by the Departmental Selection Committee on 12.8.1998. So many questions were put to the candidates regarding counting of paper, single fold and double fold of formate and about technical knowledge. The selection was made on the basis of merit as per the list prepared by the Departmental Seleclion Commitlee. If has further been submitted by these respondents that it was not necessary to pass the practical trade lest from the Department of Industrial Training Institute and Apprenticeship Training conducted by the Department of Printing and Stationery, Haryana, according to the Departmental Service Rules. 12 posts had fallen vacant at the time of the interview/test on 12.8.1998 and most suitable learner Binders were selected on 21.8.1998.

Shri Sanjay Kumar, respondent No. 9, has also filed the separate written statement and he denied the allegations of the writ petition. According to this respondent, he reported for interview on 12.8.1998 at 9.00 A.M. He was interviewed for 25-30 minutes and he was asked various questions regarding the experience and qualifications. The interview started from 9/9.30 a.m. and continued till the next date. By justifying his selection this respondent also prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

Ashok Kumar and Jagbir Singh, respondents No. 7 and 12, respectively, have also filed separate written statements in writ petition No. 6712 of 1999 and Civil Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1999 and the joint stand of these respondents is that they appeared before the Interview committee along with many other candidates and they were rightly selected, on the basis of their qualifications and performance in practical test/interview. Since the selection was totally fair and that no element of discrimination or arbitrariness existed, the question of quashing the selection does not arise.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

We are living in a democratic country and we are governed by rule of law and everybody enjoys the protection of law. In the cases of selection a quasi-judicial function is performed by the members of the Selection Committee. Their entire concentration should be on merits of the candidate; suitability accordingto the nature of the job and they should concentrate whether a particular candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications laid down in the advertisement. Most meritorious candidates should be taken. Merit should be judged on the parameters of efficiency. The process of selection should be fair, transparent and the conduct of the members of the Selection Committee should be such that nobody is in a position to raise a finger against them. If we go by the admissions of the respondents No. 1 and 2 as contained in para No. 4 of their written statement, it is clear that 528 applications were received through advertisement in the newspaper and the employment exchanges out of which 323 candidates appeared for interview/practical test. 209 candidates appeared on 12.8.1998 and remaining 114 candidates appeared on 13.8.1998. According to these respondents the process of selection continued from 11.00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. on 12.8.1998 and from 9.00 A.M. to 6.00 P.M. on 13.8.1998. It was also the stand of the respondents that so many questions were put to the candidates regarding counting of paper single fold and double fold of formate and about technical knowledge. Even the stand of the private respondent No. 9, Shri Sanjay Kumar, is that he was interviewed on 12.8.1998 for 25-30 minutes and various questions regarding experience and qualifications etc. were put to him. Is this so, is a point for determination. In the opinion of this Court fair amount of time should be given to each one of the candidates so that he may be able to show his worth, ability as per his intellect, to the members of the Selection Committee.

There cannot be a precise formula for the allocation of uniform time for each one of the candidates but if we go by the admissions of respondents No. 1 and 2, and the admission of the private respondent as contained in the written statement, we have no hesitation to hold that the process of selection was a farce and the fair chance was never given to the candidates to show their worth in the selection process. If the members of the Selection Committee were silling with a pre-deter-mined mind for the selection of the particular candidates, the entire process of selection becomes a mockery and this infringes the very spirit of impartiality and the process of merit.

In this view of the matter we are inclined to allow all the aforesaid four writ petitions and the same are hereby allowed. The selection to the post of Learner Binder, made by respondent No. 2, is hereby quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. Resul-tantly, the appointment of respondents No. 3 to 14, to the post of Learner Binder is hereby quashed and we issue a writ of mandamus to respondents No. 1 and 2 to conduct fresh selection in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petitions allowed.