Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 81
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, J.
Poonam Rani & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP Nos. 19305, 19330, 19727 of 2013, 6372 of 2014 & 1440 of 2015
Decided on : 18.01.2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Mr. M.S. Rana, Mr. J.P. Sharma, for the petitioner
Mr. Samarvir Singh, DAG, Haryana
Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, for respondent No. 232
Mr. Sajjan Singh Malik, for respondents No.194 and 144
Mr. Surender Saini, for respondent No.65
Mr. Amardeep Hooda, for respondents No.17 and 185
Mr. Karamvir Singh Banyana, for respondent No.268
Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, for respondents No. 8, 35, 45, 54, 120, 123, 148, 149, 156, 166, 174, 190, 217, 238, 241, 274, 18, 22, 38, 90, 100, 154 and 196
Mr. Harender Singh, for respondents No.51, 153, 193, 262 and 294
Mr. B.S. Brar, for respondent No.110
Mr. R.K. Malik, Ms. Rimple Kadyan, for the private respondents
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, for respondent-HPSC
Mr. Bharat Kumar, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, for respondents No.17, 19, 95, 96, 125, 136 and 194
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Vivek Goyal, for respondent No.43
Mr. Sandeep Malik, for respondent No.94
Mr. Rajat Mor, for respondent No. 87
Mr. Arun Kumar Singal, for respondent No.106
Ms. Sonia G. Singh, for respondent No.140
Mr. Pardeep Solath, for respondents No.181 and 184
Mr. S.S. Mor, for respondent No.87
Mr. Dinesh K. Jangra, for respondents No.8, 30 and 92
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Mr. Kannan Malik, for respondents No.6, 23, 26, 34, 67, 84, 85, 97, 101, 102, 108, 116, 138, 144, 145, 157, 162, 167, 171, 175, 176, 187, 188, 191, 198 and 200
Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, for respondents No.49 and 57
Mr. Virendra Rana, for respondents No.83, 89, 115, 182 and 137
Mr. Devender Punia, for respondents No.7, 16, 31, 36, 51, 63, 119, 121, 170 and 173
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, for respondents No.83, 89, 115, 137 and 182
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, for respondent-HPSC
Ritu Bahri, J.
By this single judgment I intend to dispose of five writ petitions i.e. CWP No.19305 of 2013 titled as “Poonam Rani vs. State of Haryana and others”, CWP No.19330 of 2013 titled as “Mahesh Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, CWP No.19727 of 2013 titled as “Dev Raj vs. State of Haryana and others”, CWP No.6372 of 2014 titled as “Shalender and another vs. State of Haryana and others” and CWP No.1440 of 2015 titled as “Hawa Singh vs. State of Haryana and others”.
The petitioners have filed these civil writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the appointment orders dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P3) of respondents No.4 to 307, who have been appointed to the post of Lecturer in English (School Cadre) (General Category), on the basis of the selection criteria.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 issued advertisement No.3 of 2009 for recruitment of 1317 temporary posts of Lecturer (School Cadre) HESII (Group-B) in various subjects in Haryana Education Department.
The selection process in the present case has already been upheld by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.17918 of 2012, titled as “Vandna Kaul vs. State of Haryana and another”, decided on 30.07.2015. As per that judgment, there were total 320 posts of Lecturer in English (School Cadre), out of which 199 posts were kept for General Category in which 133 posts were for male and 66 posts were for female category. The last date for receiving the applications was up to 17.07.2009, which was later on extended up to 19.08.2009. The criteria of selection was for shortlisting the candidates and in this regard, screening test was held. The candidates, who were not interviewed in the screening test have been selected. The following qualifications were prescribed for the post of Lecturer in English in the advertisement:
i. Post Graduate Degree in relevant subject from recognized University with at least 50% marks.
ii. Certificate of having qualified School Teacher's Eligibility Test (STET)
iii. Matric with Hindi/Sanskrit.
The stand of Haryana Public Service Commission that after participating in the screening test, only those candidates who were found fit in the screening test, were considered for interview was accepted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The candidates having Roll Nos. 04015 and 04041 has passed the screening test and the allegations that they had not passed the screening test was wrong. By upholding the selection process, the writ petitions were dismissed and it was held that interview committee had taken the oral interview of the candidates and the assessment made by the expert committee cannot be brought under challenge only on the ground that it was not proper and justified.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the selection criteria 60% marks had been kept for interview and 40% marks were kept for educational qualifications. He has further argued that the selection criteria was not published in the newspaper. He has placed reliance on “Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana”, 1987 AIR (SC) 454, “Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh”, 1993(1) CLR 517, “Bishnu Biswas and others vs. Union of India and others”, in Civil Appeals No.425558 of 2014, decided on 02.04.2014, “Vandana Dhadwal and another vs. Punjab University, Sector, 14, Chandigarh and others”, 2010(4) SLR 725, “The Director General, Indian Council for Agricultural Research and others”, 2011(2) SLR 723, “Anu Gupta vs. Haryana State and others”, 1993(1) SCT 726, “P. Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others”, 2007(2) SCT 604 and contends that the appointment orders dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P3) is liable to be set-aside as the respondents without formation of any selection process has appointed the candidates.
First of all, in the present case, in the selection process there was no written test. However, the ratio of the judgment c
