Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 3202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Harpreet Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-24705 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Mr. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate with Mr,. Randeep Sngh Smagh, Advocate the Petitioner.
For the Respondent: Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gursher Bhandal, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Ms. Tejaswini, Advocate for Respondents No.4 and 5
The court established that a selection process marred by fraud and manipulation must be quashed, requiring a transparent re-evaluation and fresh selection.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition - Challenging selection process for Dairy Development Officer post - Allegations of non-declaration of results and fraudulent selection - Court found selection process vitiated by collusion and directed fresh selection process to be conducted transparently. (Paras 16-18)
(B) RTI Act, 2005 - Right to information regarding selection results - Petitioner learned about appointment letters through RTI request. (Paras 3, 9)
(C) Fairness in recruitment - Importance of transparency and publication of answer keys and results emphasized. (Paras 16-17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the selection for Dairy Development Officer post, claiming results were not declared and alleging the process was fraudulent.
Findings of Court:
The entire selection process was quashed due to collusion, and a fresh selection was mandated.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the selection process and the transparency in the declaration of results.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the selection process was marred by fraud and collusion, necessitating a fresh, transparent selection process.
Result: Appointment orders of selected candidates quashed, fresh selection process ordered.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the selection made on the post of Dairy Development Officer (Group-B) for which an advertisement was issued on 22.06.2014 by the respondent- Department of Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development, Punjab inviting applications from the candidates.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner possesses the qualification of M.Sc. in Dairy Technology and he applied for the post of Dairy Development Officer (Group-B). It was informed in the advertisement that the candidates would be advised to remain in touch with the website of respondent No.2- University i.e. www.gadvasu.in in respect of date of written test and results etc. as respondent No.2-University was the agency to conduct the examination and it is at their website that the date of written test would be mentioned and the result would be declared.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination was conducted on 01.10.2014, however, the result of the said examination was not declared by respondent No.2-University. He further submits that even the Department did not declare the result nor published the merit list. It was only when the petitioner moved an application under the RTI Act, 2005 on 25.09.2015, he learnt about the issuance of appointment letters to respondent No.4 and 5. However, the petitioner was not informed even under the RTI about the result. The petitioner therefore, preferred this Writ Petition for seeking quashing of the appointment orders issued in favour of the respondents No.4 and 5 based on a wrongful and illegal method of selection as the result was not declared.
4. It was the objective type question paper with multiple choice questions and there was 25% negative marking but the answer key was also not published.
5. The respondent No.2-University has put in appearance and has taken the plea that although they were the examining body, they were not supposed to declare the result and it was the respondent-Department who was supposed to declare the result. It is stated in the reply that the respondent No.2-University conducted the examination on behalf of Department of Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development, Punjab, but after conducting the test, the result as well as complete record pertaining to the test was sent to respondent No.3 in terms of the proceedings of the meeting dated 23.05.2014. The relevant portion of reply is reproduced as under:-
"10. XXXXXX
XXXXX No doubt the test was conducted by the University on behalf of the Respondent No.1 Department of Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development, Punjab but after conducting the test, the result as well as complete record pertaining to the test was sent to the Respondent No.3 as per proceeding of the meeting dated 23.05.2014. It is worth mentioning here that Respondent No. 3 did not send the result to Respondent No.2 for its display on the website of Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. Ludhiana (GADVASU). Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 did not display the result on the University website. Moreover, it was only advisement for the students to remain in touch with the University website for date of written test/result etc."
6. On the other hand, respondents No.1 and 3 i.e. Department of Dairy Development, Punjab have stated that the selection for the post of Dairy Development Officer (Group-B) was not made by the respondents- Department and the same was made by the respondent No.2-University. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner that the result was not declared on the website of the respondent No.2-University is concerned, it is humbly submitted that the same was to be done by respondent No.2- University and not by the respondent-Department.
7. In Para 16 of the reply, they have reiterated that the selection was made by the respondents No.2-University, therefore, the result was also to be declared by the respondent No.2-Un
