Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1140
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.Kannan, J.
Vijay Kumar and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana through Secretary, Education Department and Others - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 14018 of 2000 with [Alongwith C.W.P. Nos. 14067, 14260, 14415, 14586, 14604, 14962, 15415, 15590, 15596, 15759, 15800, 15993, 16446, 16483, 16571, 16614, 16660, 16730, 17017, 17030, 17519, 17631, 17684 of 2000, 996, 3074, 3653 and 4892 of 2001 and 269, 578, 2501, 4187 and 21583 of 2010]
Decided On : 08-01-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate in C.W.P. Nos. 14018, 14415, 16483 and 16446 of 2000, Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate in C.W.P. Nos. 14604 and 16614 of 2000, Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate in C.W.P. No. 17030 of 2000, Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate in C.W.P. No. 578 of 2010, Mr. Shakti Singh, Advocate for Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate in C.W.P. No. 16730 of 2000 and 4892 of 2001, Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate in C.W.P. No. 14260 of 2000, Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate in C.W.P. No. 15415 of 2000, Mr. S.P. Laler, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate in C.W.P. No. 14067 of 2000, Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate in C.W.P. No. 17017 and 17684 of 2000
For the Respondents:Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and 17 in C.W.P. No. 14260 of 2000, for Respondent No. 9 in C.W.P. No. 17030 of 2000, for Respondent Nos. 11, 54, 68 and 78 in C.W.P. No. 14067 of 2000, for Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10 to 17 in C.W.P No. 15759 of 2000, Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12 to 15, 18 to 22, 24, 25 and 27 in C.W.P. No. 16446 of 2000, for Respondent No. 39 in C.W.P. No. 16483 of 2000, for Respondent Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 to 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 35, 38, 37, 39, 40 to 48 and 52 in C.W.P. No. 14018 of 2000, Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the Private Respondents in C.W.P. No. 578 of 2010, Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Senior Advocate with Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 1960 in C.W.P. No. 269 of 2010 and for Respondent Nos. 9, 21, 31, 46, 47, 56, 67, 71, 80, 91, 105, 107 to 110, 113, 116, 133, 163, 172, 177, 183, 200, 201, 206, 211, 216, 217, 228, 231, 237, 242, 246, 251, 252, 257, 265, 266, 270, 277, 282, 285, 296, 303, 315, 328, 329, 334, 339, 343, 346, 352, 355, 362, 365, 366, 378, 395, 403, 406, 413, 434, 440, 444, 448, 453, 457, 501, 509, 510, 511, 513, 516, 521, 530, 531, 533, 567, 569, 573, 578, 580, 599, 603, 661, 679, 697, 698, 699, 704, 709, 711, 750, 753, 755, 761, 762, 764, 775, 779, 782, 783, 789, 792, 815, 822, 826, 832, 838, 879, 884, 891, 896, 902, 905, 908, 917, 923, 943, 947, 953, 963, 978, 892, 985, 997, 998, 1004, 1008, 1027, 1034, 1036, 1042, 1056, 1084, 1099, 1103, 1111, 1123, 1127, 1143, 1150, 1155, 1159, 1167, 1183, 1187, 1191, 1199, 1201, 1207, 1217, 1226, 1232, 1246, 1248, 1251, 1256, 1257, 1273, 1274, 1280, 1283, 1291, 1300, 1315, 1319, 1323, 1334, 1337, 1350, 1352, 1357, 1358, 1366, 1365, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1402, 1421, 1428, 1433, 1439, 1454, 1457, 1459, 1462, 1482, 1494, 1502, 1525, 1524, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1553, 1558, 1576, 1580, 1582, 1596, 1603, 1610, 1619, 1625, 1640, 1643, 1644, 1649, 1652, 1659, 1692, 1699, 1708, 1733, 1755, 1771, 1816, 1821, 1823, 1840, 1843, 1849, 1852, 1856, 1862, 1887, 1894, 1896, 1903, 1920, 1929, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1982, 1990, 2001, 2005, 2007, 2018, 2052, 2053, 2057, 2083, 2097, 2114, 2115, 2118, 2160, 2173, 2195, 2197, 2204, 2255, 2264, 2272, 2287, 2293, 2296, 2329, 2331, 2371, 2412, 2425, 2436, 2455, 2458, 2468, 2486, 2497, 2499, 2504, 2527, 2534, 2536, 2545, 2549, 2565, 2567, 2573, 2569, 2583, 2599, 2603, 2607, 2608, 2642, 2665, 2674, 2680, 2684, 2693, 2698, 2705, 2707, 2711, 2716, 2712, 2727, 2730, 2740, 2744, 2758, 2764, 2771, 2775, 2804, 2817, 2828, 2830, 2833, 2838, 2849, 2851, 2855, 2874, 2894, 2930, 2942, 2952, 2956, 2964, 2998, 3005, 3007, 3012 in C.W.P. No. 578 of 2010, Mr. R.S. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 38, 41, 77, 137, 147, 177, 230, 255, 265, 275, 290, 292, 296, 305, 312, 325, 373, 374, 396, 445, 472, 515, 522, 531, 541, 555, 561, 570, 580, 582, 633, 637, 647, 699, 705, 730, 751, 763, 780, 867, 889, 897, 904, 934, 963, 1007, 1040, 1047, 1054, 1057, 1059, 1106, 1117, 1129, 1134, 1195, 1215, 1231, 1239, 1244, 1250, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1303, 1304, 1308, 1315, 1341, 1350, 1359, 1364, 1369, 1374, 1381, 1384, 1400, 1403, 1427, 1449, 1455, 1463, 1466, 1471, 1483, 1493, 1508, 1509, 1525, 1533, 1535, 1546, 1547, 1554, 1557, 1563, 1568, 1571, 1574, 1598, 1613, 1632, 1637, 1639, 1641, 1644, 1648, 1660, 1663, 1665, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1720, 1725, 1726, 1730, 1735, 1740, 1756, 1765, 1779, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1803, 1804, 1812, 1813, 1815, 1816, 1820, 1831, 1854, 1860, 1862, 1863, 1868, 1879, 1885, 1893, 1899, 1902, 1903, 1907, 1914, 1932, 1935, 1946, 1959, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1971, 1991, 1998, 2005, 2009, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2046, 2050, 2057, 2058, 2067, 2076, 2086, 2089, 2103, 2104, 2106, 2108, 2109, 2112, 2123, 2124, 2134, 2140, 2154, 2158, 2167, 2192, 2207, 2211, 2262, 2270, 2271, 2276, 2281, 2289, 2320, 2321, 2324, 2326, 2331, 2341, 2360, 2362, 2366, 2369, 2371, 2374, 2378, 2385, 2389, 2396, 2407, 2416, 2429, 2434, 2445, 2450, 2459, 2479, 2489, 2501, 2516, 2518, 2521, 2564, 2567, 2572, 2574, 2592, 2600, 2605, 2609, 2613, 2620, 2659, 2676, 2687, 2698, 2701, 2728, 2803, 2810, 2814, 2817, 2823, 2830, 2849, 2865, 2867, 2881, 2902, 2906, 2918, 2930, 2941, 2953, 2956, 2968, 3006, 3009, 3013, 3015 in C.W.P. No. 269 of 2010, Mr. Rajive Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for Respondent No. 369, 1961 to 2009 in C.W.P. No. 269 of 2010, Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for respondent No. 196 in C.W.P. No. 269 of 2010, Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for Respondents 4, 8, 9, 11 and 13 in CWP No. 14962 of 2000, Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 36 in CWP No. 14067 of 2000, for Respondent No. 19 in CWP No. 14260 of 2000 and for Respondent No. 20 in CWP No. 15759 of 2000, Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana for Official Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to maintain the integrity of the selection process, uphold the distinction between tainted and untainted candidates, and ensure fairness and transparency in appointments.
Headnote:
JBT Teachers selection - Selection Process, Malpractices, CBI Investigation - Haryana Primary Education Group C Rules of 1998, Abhishek Rishi v. State of Punjab, Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab - District-wise selection, Tainted vs. untainted candidates, Disposition
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the selection process of Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers in Haryana, which was marred by malpractices and fraudulent manipulations. The CBI investigation revealed the fabrication of the selection list and the involvement of high-ranking officials, including the Chief Minister and his son. The Criminal Court found evidence of tampering with the selection list and conspiracy among the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the selection process was vitiated by fraud and nepotism, and the published list of selected candidates was not genuine. It held that the selection should have been made from a state merit list, rejecting the argument for district-wise selection. The Court also emphasized the distinction between tainted and untainted candidates, ruling that those involved in fraudulent practices should be removed from their posts.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the selection process, district-wise selection, and the distinction between tainted and untainted candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the selection process should have been based on a state merit list, rejecting the argument for district-wise selection. It emphasized the need to maintain the distinction between tainted and untainted candidates, ruling that those involved in fraudulent practices should be removed from their posts.
Final Decision: The Court ordered the preparation of a new merit list based on academic qualifications and interview marks, removal of candidates involved in fraudulent practices, and termination of appointments for candidates not included in the new list. It also directed the State to relax the age for removed candidates for future appointments.
I. JBT Teachers selection: the genesis of the controversy
This batch of writ petitions concerns the selection process of Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers, pursuant to a selection notification issued on 15.11.1999 in Daily Newspaper Tribune by the Director, Primary Education and for posting to be done for 3206 candidates at the Primary Education level within different Districts of State of Haryana. That notification had set out details of various categories of persons who would be recruited and the basic qualification setting out the eligibility criteria for making applications and for consideration for selection. As a preliminary step after appraisal of the eligibility, roll numbers had been assigned to the candidates and the relative grading had been done by taking into reckoning the academic qualifications at 70% with weightage for higher qualifications and experience respectively at 5% each, aggregating to an extent of 80% and 20% marks to be assigned for performance in interview. Some persons, who had higher qualification with graduate degree with B.Ed had filed C.W.P. No. 16410 of 1999 for permitting their applications to be considered and this Court had passed an order allowing them to be interviewed. Total number of persons so interviewed were 7707 candidates. While manipulations were not possible as regards the academic qualification and the grading done on the basis of higher qualifications, the area of controversy was of the appraisal done at the interview. The results were published along with criteria for selection in several newspapers including the Indian Express on 07.10.2000. On the basis of the results, appointment orders had also been issued.
II. The CBI investigation reveals the modus operandi for preparation of the supreme court list and the 'directorate list'
The validity of the selection process and the publication of results were brought under cloud when some of the candidates, who had not been selected, had filed writ petitions alleging grave malpractices. As if to secure credence to their versions, a case had been registered against one Sanjiv Kumar, IAS who held the additional charge as Director of Primary Education at the relevant time when the results were published and against whom a FIR No. 312 had been registered on 04.06.2002 and still later yet another FIR No. 293 had been registered on 03.06.2003 at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. The latter was on the basis of a complaint of one Paley Ram, Deputy S.P., Haryana Vigilance Bureau for alleged offences under Section 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 471A, 120 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The case took another twist when Sanjiv Kumar himself had approached the Supreme Court by means of a Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 93 of 2003 contending that when he was posted as Director, Primary Education Haryana, he had been pressurised by the then Chief Minister Sh. Om Parkash Chautala to replace the list of candidates which had been prepared and was due for publication with an alternative list containing a set of 15 award lists signed by the members of the selection committee which Sanjiv Kumar claimed as the fake list. When he refused to comply with the pressure for changing the list, a false case had been allegedly filed against him. During the course of investigation, Sanjiv Kumar handed over one set of interview list of District Kaithal and part list of District Kurukshetra to the CBI. The 15 award list filed by Sanjiv Kumar at the Supreme Court and one interview list at District Kaithal and part list at District Kurukshetra constituted what could conveniently be called as Supreme Court list. Sanjiv Kumar claimed that the actual list which had been prepared and which was ultimately published for announcing the results was actually approved by the Directorate Primary Education which could conveniently be called as the Directorate list. The Supreme Court found tha
