2007 Supreme(P&H) 1828

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Jagjit Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 7561 of 2006,
Decided On : OCTOBER 11, 2007

Headnote:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLES 14, 16 - PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995 - SECTIONS 2(P) & (T), 33 - PUNJAB PANCHAYAT SAMITIS AND ZILA PARISHADS SERVICES RULES, 1965 - RULES 4 & 6 - SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR VARIOUS POSTS IN ZILA PARISHADS AND PANCHAYAT SAMITIES - IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALITIES IN THE SELECTION PROCESS - TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF SELECTED CANDIDATES - VALIDITY - HELD, SELECTION PROCESS WAS VITIATED DUE TO IRREGULARITIES AND ILLEGALITIES - TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF CANDIDATES WAS VALID.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were employed on various posts, namely-Veterinary Pharmacist, Clerk, Beldar, Boatman, Peon, Mali cum chowkidar, Water Carrier and Sweeper against the vacancies meant for physically handicapped persons. The services of the petitioners were terminated by the respondents on the ground that various irregularities were found at the time of their appointments. The petitioners challenged the termination of their services.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that there were glaring illegalities, discrepancies and irregularities in the process of selection. The Court found that incomplete applications lacking particulars, requisite certificates and demand drafts etc. were entertained. Many applications were entertained after the last date of receipt of applications. Certain appointed candidates were either under age or over age, accordingly, ineligible for appointments. In case of many candidates, applications were not on the formats prescribed in the advertisement. The demand drafts annexed with the applications were of the dates when even the advertisement had not been issued or of a date beyond the last date for receipt of applications. The advertised vacancies were beyond available vacancies as per cadre strength. Further the selection and appointments were made even beyond advertised vacancies. The terms of the advertisement with regard to age were not in conformity with Rule 6 of the 1965 Rules. According to which for non-technical post, the prescribed age is 18 to 30 years whereas for technical post, it was 18 to 33 years on first day of the January of the year immediately preceding the last date fixed for submission of applications whereas in the advertisement published on September 8, 2001, age was mentioned as 18 to 35 years as on August 1, 2001. It was further argued that the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short "the 1995 Act") had been completely ignored, which provide as to how 3% vacancies reserved in the handicapped quota are to be bifurcated amongst various categories. The Director, who had made earlier selections was found guilty of committing gross irregularities and illegalities in the selection process and enquiry is going on against him. Further in terms of the 1965 Rules, the competent authority for appointment to various posts in Zila Parishad is the Zila Parishad concerned and is Panchayat Samiti concerned in case of employees of a Panchayat Samiti. Without there being any decision of the Government to centralize the selection, even the appointments were made by the authority, who was not competent to make the same. Further, it is submitted that from the facts it can very well be inferred that effort was to give appointments to certain favourities. The show cause notices were issued to all the candidates by registered post.

Issues: Whether the selection process was vitiated due to irregularities and illegalities.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the selection process was vitiated due to irregularities and illegalities. The Court relied on the following principles: 1. The nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. 2. If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. 3. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners.