Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 881 (PNJ)

Ajit Pal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-08-22

NIRMAL YADAV, S.S.NIJJAR

body2005
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book. 2. Mr. Bawa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the respondents-Corporation have wrongly placed the petitioner under respondents No.4 to 7 in the seniority list of Junior Engineers. The respondents-Corporation have wrongly ignored the merit of the petitioner as determined by the Selection Committee of the Corporation, when the petitioner was selected by the Corporation alongwith respondents No.4 to 7, on contract basis on 27.3.1990. The petitioner having been placed at Serial No. 1 of the merit, was entitled to be considered as senior. The petitioner was also appointed on the post of Work Inspector earlier than respondents No.4, 6 and 7. Even the experience of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer before joining the respondents-Corporation has been illegally ignored. The criteria fixed by the respondents-Corporation for selection has been arbitrarily ignored by the Selection Committee. The peti tioner should have been given 11.6 marks for the ACR, but he had been given only 9.6 marks. No marks scored have been allocated for passing Part "A" of the AMIE, qualification. This has been done only to make Bhinder Singh higher in merit, by giving him two marks for passing part "A" of the AMIE qualification. Learned Counsel has vehemently argued that respondents No. 4 to 7 have been deliberately given more marks arbitrarily just to make them senior to the petitioner. 3. The respondents have filed their written statements. It has been stated that no seniority of the Junior Engineers on contract basis was prepared. In fact, it is clearly mentioned in the Punjab Police Housing Coiporation Employees Service Bye-laws in the note below Rule 3.3(l)(d) that seniority of members, appointed on purely ad hoc basis, shall be determined as and when they are regularly appointed, keeping in view the date of such regular appointment. The petitioner has been placed on the seniority list on the basis of the criteria laid down for regularisation of service. The criteria for regularisation was framed by the Selection Committee. The criteria has been attached with the written statement as Annexure R-2. On the basis of the aforesaid criteria, the petitioner secured 51.54 marks out of 85 marks and stood at the sixth position. Respondents No. 4 to 7 secured 63.08, 59.19, 56.60 and 55.13 marks, respectively. The criteria for regularisation was framed by the Selection Committee. The criteria has been attached with the written statement as Annexure R-2. On the basis of the aforesaid criteria, the petitioner secured 51.54 marks out of 85 marks and stood at the sixth position. Respondents No. 4 to 7 secured 63.08, 59.19, 56.60 and 55.13 marks, respectively. No credit was given for the service rendered on contract basis. 4. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the considered opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. The respondents-Corporation have framed a criteria which takes into consideration a number of factors for determining the merit of the candidate. The petitioner, however, claims to be senior only on the basis that he was placed at Sr. No. 1 at the time when the petitioner was selected alongwith respondents No.4 to 7, for appointment on contract basis. The petitioner has not placed on record any rule/regulation which would show that the merit determined at the time of appointment on contract basis will be maintained even at the time when the claim of the employee is considered for regularisation. On 26.11.1997, the Committee, consisting of Chief Engineer and three Executive Engineers was constituted to scrutinise/screen the record of all the Junior Engineers and to recommend the names of the deserving Engineers, working on contract basis with the Corporation for regularisation of their services. The aforesaid Committee formulated following criteria:- "CRITERIA i) Essential : Diploma in Civil/Electrical Engineering Marks : 10 for Diploma Extra Marks :- A.M. I.E. : Section A 2 Marks Degree/ A.M. I.E. : Section A & B 5 Marks ii) Marks obtained in Diploma %age Maximum Marks : 20 Formula : % marks obtained x 20 100 iii) Experience Experience as Work Inspector Maximum Marks for 5 years : 10 and on proportional basis for less than five years. Experience as Junior Engineer Maximum Marks for 5 years : 20 and proportional basis for less thin five years. iv) Record Last : 10 monthly reports of works and conduct, the marks given:- Outstanding : 5 V. Good : 4 Good : 3 Average/ satisfactory : 2 Poor : 0 Maximum Marks : 20 "The aforesaid criteria cannot be said to be arbitrary. The record of the petitioner was screened by the Selection Committee. iv) Record Last : 10 monthly reports of works and conduct, the marks given:- Outstanding : 5 V. Good : 4 Good : 3 Average/ satisfactory : 2 Poor : 0 Maximum Marks : 20 "The aforesaid criteria cannot be said to be arbitrary. The record of the petitioner was screened by the Selection Committee. His record was as under:- Period Overall Assessment Remarks 12.07.1995 Average Being a new entrant his working has to be watched for some time more to exactly assess his capability. 23.08.1995 Average 12.09.1995 Average 18.10.1995 Average 17.11.1995 Average He is an average official but he may be given some more time to prove his worth, as he is capable of doing so. 16.5.1996 to 20.8.1996 Satisfactory February, 1997 Satisfactory May, 1997 Good November, 1997 Good" 5 Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Expert Selection Committee constituted by the respondents-Corporation have determined the relative merit of the Junior Engineers. It has been pointed out in the written statement that seniority list was first circulated on 1.10,2001, on the basis of the merit determined by the Expert Selection Committee. Bhinder Singh had obtained 63.08 marks. Therefore, even if the 2 marks given to him for having Part "A" of the AMIE Qualification, are taken away, he would still score 61.08 marks. Therefore, it would not improve the position of the petitioner. Further even if seniority is determined on the basis of length of service rendered by the Junior Engineer on contract basis, even then Bhinder Singh is senior to the petitioner, as Bhinder Singh joined as JE on contract basis on 28,8.1994 whereas the petitioner joined w,e.f. 26.5.1995. The seniority list has been finalised after objections were invited against the tentative seniority list dated 24.8.2001. The petitioner was actually shifted from Serial No. 11 to Serial No.6. At this stage, in the absence of proved mala fide, and blatant or apparent arbitrariness, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This view of ours would be fortified by the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaiir Paintal and Ors. This view of ours would be fortified by the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaiir Paintal and Ors. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has observed as under:- It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic field the Court generally does not interfere. In the University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, this Court observed that the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointments based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance. The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which Chancellor has acted. See also the decisions in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj Bhawan and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan. We are of the considered opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner." In view of the aforestated discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. We find not merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.