State Of Punjab vs Satnam Kaur - 2005 Supreme(SC) 1619

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(SC) 1619

2005(8) Supreme 753
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
State of Punjab & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Satnam Kaur and Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6046-6058 of 2003
Decided on 16-12-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sarup Singh, Senior Addl. Advocate General for State of Punjab, Arun K. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Gurnam Singh, Dinesh Verma, Ms. Suresh Kumar, A.P. Mohanty and Ms. S. Janani, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law—Posts of Ward Servant, Sweeper, Mali, Cook, Aaya and Dental Attendent—Selection of 31 candidates after about 1000-persons out of more than 9000 applicants were interviewed—Writ was filed challenging selection of candidates where in 18 of selected candidates were made parties—High Court noticed discriminatory treatment made in awarding marks to persons similary situated and entire selection process was bad and set aside the selection made by the Board—State by an order dated 23-4-2001 cancelled appointment of all 31 candidates—Respondents questioned the order by filing writ petition and claimed regularisation contending that they had been appointed on adhoc basis long back and as per State Govt. policy they having completed 240 days were entitled to be regularised and that they were not party to earlier writ—High Court allowed the writ—Appeal—Once High Court was of opinion that entire selection process was bad in law and having been upheld by Supreme Court in S.L.P., it was not permissible to bye-pass the same and grant relief to respondents—Impugned Judgment was liable to be set aside.
       Held : It was not a case where the High Court, in our opinion, could have interfered with the order dated 23-04-2001 passed by the appellant herein. We have noticed hereinbefore the findings of the High Court arrived in Writ Petition No. 11116 of 1997 for the purpose of setting aside the entire selection process. It is true that in the said writ petition only 18 out of 31 selected candidates were made parties, but they were made parties because an additional ground was taken by the writ petitioners therein that their cases were recommended by some influential persons or they were otherwise known to the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr. The main prayer in the said writ petition, however, was that the entire selection process was bad in law. Once the High Court was of the opinion that the entire selection process was bad in law and the said order having been upheld by this Court, in our opinion, it was impermissible to bye-pass the same. The contention of the respondents herein that they were entitled to be regularized in services was not a matter which had a direct nexus with the order of termination of their services passed by the State. Indisputably, they took part in the selection process. Indisputably again such selection process was initiated pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr. Once the respondents herein had participated in the selection process and became selected, they could not have filed a writ petition on a different premise, namely, they having been appointed on ad hoc basis long time back, their services should have been regularized pursuant to or in furtherance of a purported policy decision dated 18-01-1995. (Para 17)
       The High Court for all intent and purport, thus, sought to bye-pass its own binding judgment as also the order of this Court. Moreover, the effect of such judgments did not fall for discussion by the High Court. The effect of non-joinder of the respondents would not be such which would confer a legal right upon them to file another writ petition whereby and whereunder the effect of the earlier judgment would be completely wiped out. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—The State of Punjab is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 10.01.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by the Respondents herein.

2. On or about 07-05-1997, the Civil Surgeon, Nawanshahr issued an advertisement in ‘New Zamana’, Jalandhar, inviting applications for the following 31 posts :

(1) Ward Servant 15

(2) Sweeper 08

(3) Mali 02

(4) Cook 04

(5) Aaya 01

(6) Dental Attendant 01

3. A large number of candidates being more than 9000 applied for appointments in the said posts pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement. Interviews of about 1000 persons were conducted on 12/13.05.1997. Appointment letters to the so-called candidates were despatched on 05.06. 1997 and they were allowed to join on 06.6. 1997.

4. A writ petition was filed by some unsuccessful candidates, which was marked as Civil Writ Petition No. 11116 of 1997, wherein 18 of the selected candidates were made parties. The entire selection process as well as the selection of the said respondents were questioned, inter alia, on the ground that their names were recommended by one or the other influential persons or they had otherwise access to the Civil Surgeon concerned. In the said writ petition, it was, inter alia, prayed :

“i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection of Class IV employee in the civil hospital Nawanshahr vide selection list Annexure P/3 and further to order quashing the appointment of respondent No. 4 to 21 against the post (in class IV) and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Class IV employees in the civil hospital, Nawanshahr.”

5. A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 10-11-2000 perused the records pertaining to the process of selection and the results thereof and was of the opinion that although no criteria whatsoever was fixed for evaluating the marks which were to be given to each individual candidate but despite the same 5 marks had been awarded for the purported qualification and experience to each candidate while 20 marks had been fixed for interview. It was noticed :

“...It may also be mentioned here that according to the notification which was issued on 7th May, 1997, it was indicated that (i) the candidate should be able to read write, Punjabi and (ii) the experience shall be given preference. In view of this it is apparent that the committee which was conducting the interview was given no guidelines which were to be followed by them by evaluating the worth of any candidate it had an absolute and arbitrary discretion regarding how they were to access and award marks during the time of interview Further more it is also evident that out of a total of 30 marks that were to be awarded, 20 marks have been earmarked for the interview which shows that more that 66% marks were to be given by the member of the board without any parameter having been fixed awarding thereof. No material has been placed before us to show that how 20 marks were to be awarded by the five members of the Board nor it is clear that how the marks have actually been awarded...”

6. The High Court further noticed the manner in which discriminatory treatment had been made in awarding the marks to the persons similarly situated. It was also not clear to the High Court as to how the merit list was prepared. It was observed :

“...One fails to see how a person been the basic qualifications, above to read and write Punjabi could have been awarded 1 marks not here is anything to indicate that on what basis various candidates have been awarded more marks once the advertisement did not provide for preference being given to candidates having higher qualifications.”

7. It was noticed that even while awarding marks for experience candidates were awarded marks from 0 to 15. It was further held :

“...It is also not clear from the lists, as alre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1619

Cases Referred (6)