The failure to notify all candidates for interviews in a recruitment process constitutes a violation of natural justice, warranting the quashing of the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. In question is the selection process undertaken by the respondents for recruitment to a post of Salesman in respondent No.4-Society.

2.....

(i) Respondent No.4 is a Society registered under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1956. The Society decided to fill-up a post of Salesman at Sub Depot Chhuman. Accordingly, respondent No.4-Society issued a notice vide Annexure P-2 inviting applications from eligible candidates. The last date of submission of application forms mentioned in the notice was 10.03.2021.

(ii) Petitioner No.1 & 2 along with respondents No.5, 6 & 7, applied for the post in question. Interviews were conducted by Committee headed by the Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Jhanduta, District Bilaspur. Petitioner No.1 and respondents No.5-7 appeared in the interview.Respondent No.5 was declared successful.Feeling aggrieved against the selection process as a whole, petitioners (Sh. Satish Kumar and Smt. Poonam Devi) have instituted this writ petition on 28.01.2022. Pursuant to an interim order passed in this petition on 31.01.2022, the respondents have kept the post of Salesman in question vacant.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised, following two contentions:-

(i) The respondents have incorrectly not awarded any marks in the selection process for “training in Cooperation”. Marks were required to be allotted to the participating applicants, in view of Rules Relating to terms of Employment and Working Conditions of the Employees of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies, 2001.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, including learned Deputy Advocate General while opposing the above contention submitted that the Rules in question had undergone amendment on 09.07.2019, inter alia, revising the criteria for allocation of marks. As per revised criteria, which governed the selection process, no marks were to be awarded for ‘training in Cooperation’. The amended criteria for allocation of marks in terms of order dated 09.07.2019, was in place at the time of issuing the notice calling for applications. Accordingly, no marks were allocated for ‘training in Cooperation’ to any of the participating applicants.In view of amendment of the Rules with respect to the allocation of marks, as in-force on the date of issuance of advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that his first contention does not survive and has been rendered infructuous.

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, next contended that petitioner No.2 had not even been called for the interviews conducted by the respondents for the post in question. Respondents held the interviews, wherein only petitioner No.1 and respondents No.5, 6 & 7 participated. Respondent No.5 was selected in the interview. Irreparable loss and injury has been caused by the respondents to petitioner No.2, who despite having applied within the stipulated period was neither informed about the interview date nor called upon to appear in the same.Considering petitioner’s above objection, learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to produce the record, more specifically pertaining to information given to petitioner No.2 about the scheduled date for the interview and for appearance in the interview.During the course of the hearing, learned Deputy Advocate General produced the record. The record does not show any document from which it could be inferred that petitioner No.2 was given intimation for appearing in the interview on a particular date. The absence of documentary evidence suggesting any intimation given to petitioner No.2 for appearing in the interview and the date of convening such interview, is an admitted fact.To a query of the Court, learned Deputy Advocate General on the basis of instructions imparted to her by Mr. Lenin Chandel, Secretary, respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 had called the applicants/candi