IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, SANDEEP SHARMA, JJ.
Sunita Sharma, D/o. Late Sh. B.K. Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh, Through Additional Chief Secretary (MPP) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4399 of 2021 & 3598 of 2020
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 85(1), 82 and Sub-section 5 of Section 82 - Application for appointment as Member - Selection Committee awarded the marks on the basis of resume supplied by the candidates - Respondents case at hand - Respondent No.1 invited the applications for the post of Member (Law) in the office of HPERC - respondent No.2. Petitioner, who is a designated Senior Advocate and is a part time Member of the H.P. State Consumer Commission, being fully eligible had also applied for the post detailed - Respondent No.3, who at that relevant time, was posted as LR-cum- Secretary Government of Himachal Pradesh also submitted an application for appointment as Member - Selection Committee adopted its own procedure for selection it decided that each Member would award marks individually out of total 10 marks on basis of documents submitted by the applicants - Selection Committee also decided that marks awarded by Members would be aggregated and would be divided by three in order to prepare merit of panel - Mere grant of less marks to the petitioner by the Committee is no ground to hold that Members of the Selection Committee were biased against the petitioner. Leaving everything aside, there was no specific allegation of bias against Members of Selection Committee (Para 32).
Finding of the Court : Offer of appointment to respondent No.3 did not contain any term and condition, it cannot be said that it elapsed after a period of one month in terms of provisions contained in Annexures otherwise are not applicable to HPERC - Respondent No.2 being statutory body constituted under the Act - Though we do not find any merit in the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner, but even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that respondent No.3 ought to have given his joining within a period of one month from issuance of notification of his appointment - Delay in giving joining against post in question, petitioner would not be benefited, rather it is candidate at Serial No.2 in panel recommended by Selection Committee can put claim of being appointed against post in question. Otherwise - Respondent No.3 has not been given offer of appointment, rather his appointment has been notified by way of notification and also no specific period of joining ever came to be prescribed and as such action of respondent No.2 in accepting the joining of respondent No.3 after expiry of one month period cannot be said to be bad in law.
Result: Petitions dismissed
ORDER :
Since both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and same and similar questions of facts are involved therein, therefore, both were being heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order.
2. In CWP No.3598 of 2020 petitioner has laid challenge upon the selection and appointment and in CWP 4399 of 2021 upon the joining of Mr.Yashwant Singh Chogal who is respondent No.2 and 3 respectively in both the petitions.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP 4399 of 2021 inasmuch as they accepted the joining of respondent No.3 to the post of Member (Law) of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘HPERC’) after inordinate delay, petitioner, who also participated in the selection process and was at Serial No.3 in the merit list, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for the following main relief(s) made in CWP No.4399 of 2021 as well as in CWP No.3598 of 2020:-
“(i) That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued declaring the acceptance of joining of respondent No.3 to be illegal, null and void being contrary to the provisions of law, as it has already elapsed after a period of one month, in the interest of law and justice.”
CWP 3598 of 2020:-
“a Quash Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-10, the selection and appointment of respondent No.2 as Member Law of the H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission.
b. Quash the penal Annexure P-5 prepared by the selection committee in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and criteria adopted by Committee in violation of their own procedure adopted and keeping the merit of the candidates away, while selection.
c. To direct the respondent no.4 to 6 to revisit the entire selection process after considering all the facts narrated hereinabove.
d. To direct the respondent no.1 to consider the petitioner for appointment in place of respondent no.2.”
4. For having bird’s eye view certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that on 27.05.2020, respondent No.1 invited the applications for the post of Member (Law) in the office of HPERC - respondent No.2. Petitioner, who is a designated Senior Advocate and is a part time Member of the H.P. State Consumer Commission, being fully eligible had also applied for the post detailed hereinabove. Respondent No.3, who at that relevant time, was posted as LR-cum- Secretary (Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh also submitted an application for appointment as Member (Law) in the HPERC. Respondent No.1 in terms of provisions contained under Section 85(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) constituted a Selection Committee consisting of:-
(2) Shri Anil Khachi, Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as Member of the Selection Committee.
(3) Shri P.K. Pujari, Chairperson Central Regulatory Commission, New Delhi, as Member of the Selection Committee.
5. Selection Committee adopted its own procedure for selection, wherein it decided that each Member would award marks individually out of total 10 marks on the basis of documents submitted by the applicants. Selection Committee also decided that marks awarded by the Members would be aggregated and thereafter would be divided by three in order to prepare merit of panel. On the basis of aforesaid analogy/procedure, Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 16.07.2020, prepared the merit list and recommended panel of names for appointment on the basis of merit as follows:-
| Sr. No. | Name | Address of recommendee |
| 1. | Yashwant Singh | Chogal Niwas near IAS Co |
State of Gujarat vs. Utility User’s Association and Others
Parkash Singh Badal and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others
State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another
State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal
Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India and Others
M.V. Thimmaiah and Others vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.