119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP-25238-2021

Date of decision: December 23, 2021

Dinesh Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional AG Haryana.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner, a probationer who was selected as Junior Engineer(Civil)

pursuant to an advertisement No.10 of 2019, has impugned an order dated

26.11.2021/06.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) vide which his services have been

dispensed with/terminated without issuance of any show-cause notice.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

case file.

3.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that

such an adverse order which takes away the livelihood of the petitioner could

not have been passed without following principles of natural justice and/or

issuance of any show-cause notice. He relies on a judgment of Apex Court in

the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha versus State of Bihar, 1993 (3) S.C.T. 747

and a judgment of this Court in the case of Ombir Singh versus Distt. Rural

Dev. Agency, 1991 (2) S.C.T. 692.

4.

On advance service, learned State counsel appears and opposes

issuance of notice of motion. She contends that the petitioner being a

MAHAVIR SINGH

2022.01.06 21:52

I attest to the accuracy of

this order

probationer has no right to plead that his services have been terminated without

issuance of show-cause notice as the appointment letter itself states that during

the probation period, services can be terminated without issuance of any show-

cause notice by giving one month notice. Further, she relies on clause-13 of the

appointment letter dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), which is reproduced

herein below:-

“13. In case of SC/ST/BC(A&B)/EWS/ESP candidates the

appointment is provisional and subject to the SC/ST/BC

(A&B)/EWS/ESP certificate being verified through proper channel

and if the verification reveals at any stage that the claim belonging

to SC/ST/BC(A&B)/EWS/ESP, as the case may be, is false, the

serviceswill be terminated forthwith without assigning any further

reasons and without prejudice to such further action as may be

taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for production

of false certificate.”

5.

Confronted with the above clause, learned Senior counsel submits

that regardless of the fact that ostensible reason of termination of services of the

petitioner providing wrong information qua his father having served with the

Government of India, 5 marks given to the petitioner under Socio-Economic

criteria cannot be deducted as on the date he applied for the post in question, his

father was not in service. The insipidity of the argument is borne out from the

clause (iv) (a) of the notification dated 11.06.2019 issued by the Government of

Haryana:-

“(iv) The 10 marks for socio-economic criteria and

experience shall be allocated as follows:-

(a)

if neither the applicant nor any person from among the

applicant’s family viz. father, mother, spouse, brothers and sons, is,

was or has been a regular employee in any Department/Board/

Corporation/Company/Statutory

Body/Commission/Authority

of

Government of Haryana or any other State Government or the

Government of India;

(5 marks)”

6.

A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that even if the

father or any other family member of an aspirant who applied pursuant to the

MAHAVIR SINGH

2022.01.06 21:52

I attest to the accuracy of

this order

advertisement had ceased to be in service, he/she is not entitled to allow 5 marks

under the Socio-Economic criteria. Concededly, it is not the case of the

petitioner that his father was not in Government service. The aforesaid clause

(iv) (a) is not under challenge before this Court.