Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4225
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
Bhajan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CWP No. 17861 of 2014
Decided On : 12-11-2018
Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with M/s Arjun Pratap Atma Ram and Inder Pal Goyat, Advocates, for the Petitioners in CWP Nos. 17861 & 20332 of 2014; Aman Arora, Advocate, for the Petitioner in CWP No. 19468 of 2014; S.P. Arora and Himanshu Arora, Advocates, for the Petitioner in CWP No. 22301 of 2014; D.S. Nalwa, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the State of Haryana; H.N. Mehtani, Advocate & Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the HPSC; B.S. Rana, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Bansal, Advocate, for the Private Respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 17861 of 2014; P.S. Poonia, Advocate, for the Private Respondent No. 5 in CWP Nos. 17861, 20332 & 22301 of 2014; R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Samrat Malik and S.K. Hooda, Advocates, for the Private Respondent No. 9 in CWP No. 17861 of 2014; Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with R.P.S. Bara, Advocate, for the Private Respondent No. 10 in CWP No. 17861 of 2014; Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for the Private Respondent No. 11 in CWP No. 17861 of 2014
Headnote:
The selection process for Register A-II from ministerial services of Group-C employees working in the various departments of the State government was challenged on the grounds of relaxation of Rule 10(3) by the State Government exercising powers under Rule 30 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, without consulting the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). The court held that consultation with the HPSC was not necessary as the process of consultation had been made at the time of initial framing of Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India (COI), and it is not necessary to consult the Commission again for exercising the powers of relaxation conferred under the Rules. The court further held that the relaxation of Rule 10(3) was a valid exercise of power under Rule 30, as the Government was of the opinion that it was necessary and expedient to do so, and reasons were recorded in writing. The court also held that the criteria adopted by the Commission for evaluating the candidates was not arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, and the Commission was free to evolve its own procedure for the conduct of the selection.
Fact of the Case:
Notification dated 18.09.2013 was issued to all the Heads of Departments in Haryana (except the Chief Secretary to Government Haryana and Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana and Financial Commissioner, Revenue & Disaster Management and Consolidation Departments) and the Heads of Department/nominating authorities inviting their attention to recommend the name of one member of Group-C service working under their control for "Recruitment to the HCS (Executive Branch) against the three vacancies of the year 2012 from Register A-II of Members of Group-C services". The Departments were required to follow the instructions of the Chief Secretary, Haryana issued on 10.05.2013 and name(s) of the eligible, suitable and meritorious candidates were to be forwarded accompanied by the following record/information: (i) Service profile of the eligible officer in Proforma 'I' (five copies); (ii) The upto date ACRs in original of the officer concerned; (iii) Attested copies of summaries of ACRs from the year 2003-2004 to 2012-2013 in Form 'II' (five copies); (iv) Integrity certificate in Form 'III' (five copies);
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relaxation of Rule 10(3) was a valid exercise of power under Rule 30, as the Government was of the opinion that it was necessary and expedient to do so, and reasons were recorded in writing. The court further held that the criteria adopted by the Commission for evaluating the candidates was not arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, and the Commission was free to evolve its own procedure for the conduct of the selection.
Issues: 1. Whether the relaxation given to Rule 10(3) by the State Government exercising powers under Rule 30 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 vide Annex P-11 of calling candidates more than twice the number of vacancies, is legal and valid? 2. Whether the provisions of Rule 10(3) of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 in limiting names of candidates to be sent to the Commission twice the number of vacancies is directory or mandatory in nature and how is the word 'shall' to be interpreted? 3. Whether relaxation was required at all, if the rule is to be read as directory in nature, then the question of relaxation would not arise? 4. Whether the recommendations made by the Committee in forwarding the names of all the nominated candidates from Register A II numbering total 29 to the Commission for interview is vitiated by mala fides? 5. Whether the act of the Haryana Public Service Commission in framing criteria after receiving recommendations of the Government is vitiated in law and hit by the judgments of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree, Hemani Malhotra cases etc.? 6. The petitioners after having participated in the selection process are they estopped in law from challenging the same having remained unsuccessful? 7. Whether there is a case of extreme haste shown in making the selection in which the Commission forwarded the recommendations and pursuant thereto appointments were offered smacks of arbitrariness and mala fide action? 8. Assuming arguendo that the selection is bad and deserves to be set aside, what relief can be granted to the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relaxation of Rule 10(3) was a valid exercise of power under Rule 30, as the Government was of the opinion that it was necessary and expedient to do so, and reasons were recorded in writing. The court further held that the criteria adopted by the Commission for evaluating the candidates was not arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, and the Commission was free to evolve its own procedure for the conduct of the selection.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - This order will dispose of the five above captioned connected writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (for short 'COI') as the cause they espouse and the factual and legal issues involved in them is common and, therefore, they can be conveniently decided by a single order to which the counsel have no objection.
2. Before starting any discussion on the merits of the case and the legal issues arising for adjudication, it may be noticed that the submissions in these set of petitions, wherein challenge is to the selection and appointment of the private respondents 9 to 11 in CWP No.17861 of 2014 to the ' Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) from Register A-II of members of Group-C services, are centered on the following questions framed by this Court in the interim order dated 15.02.2018 after hearing the senior and other counsel appearing for the parties and satisfied that these issues alone arise for determination:
"(i) Whether the relaxation given to Rule 10(3) by the State Government exercising powers under Rule 30 of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 vide Annex P-11 of calling candidates more than twice the number of vacancies, is legal and valid?
(ii) Whether the provisions of Rule 10(3) of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 in limiting names of candidates to be sent to the Commission twice the number of vacancies is directory or mandatory in nature and how is the word 'shall' to be interpreted?
(iii) Whether relaxation was required at all, if the rule is to be read as directory in nature, then the question of relaxation would not arise?
(iv) Whether the recommendations made by the Committee in forwarding the names of all the nominated candidates from Register A II numbering total 29 to the Commission for interview is vitiated by mala fides?
(v) Whether the act of the Haryana Public Service Commission in framing criteria after receiving recommendations of the Government is vitiated in law and hit by the judgments of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree, Hemani Malhotra cases etc.?
(vi) The petitioners after having participated in the selection process are they estopped in law from challenging the same having remained unsuccessful?
(vii) Whether there is a case of extreme haste shown in making the selection in which the Commission forwarded the recommendations and pursuant thereto appointments were offered smacks of arbitrariness and mala fide action?
(viii) Assuming arguendo that the selection is bad and deserves to be set aside, what relief can be granted to the petitioners?"
3. For considering and deciding the aforesaid questions framed, as well as for the facility of reference, the paper-book in CWP No.17861 of 2014 is treated as the main case to draw the facts and documents from which are not disputed in any of the cases as only purely legal issues are involved for resolution as to the nature and character of the selection procedure of inductions of three candidates to the HCS (EB) from Register A-II and whether it is within the law or is the entire process vitiated by legal infirmities or play of extraneous considerations.
The background:
4. Notification dated 18.09.2013 was issued to all the Heads of Departments in Haryana (except the Chief Secretary to Government Haryana and Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana and Financial Commissioner, Revenue & Disaster Management and Consolidation Departments) and the Heads of Department/nominating authorities inviting their attention to recommend the name of one member of Group-C service working under their control for "Recruitment to the HCS (Executive Branch) against the three vacancies of the year 2012 from Register A-II of Members of Group-C services" to be sent to the Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, Personnel Department, in terms of Rule 10 of
