Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1514 (PNJ)

Ramphal v. State Of Haryana

2006-04-18

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment M. M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated October 24, 2003 (annexure P-8) passed by the director Secondary Education, Haryana, respondent No.2, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of Sanskrit teacher. The aforementioned order has been passed in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in its order dated October 9, 2002, (annexure P-7)passed in C. W. P. No.6258 of 1994, disposing of a large number of writ petitions including the one filed by the petitioners. 2. Brief facts may first be noticed. On July 10, 1991, respondent state issued an advertisement (Annexure P-1) for filling up 219 posts of sanskrit Teacher. The advertisement announced filling up of total 5070 posts in different cadres like JBT Teachers, Masters Secondary school, lecturer Secondary School, Candv Teachers and Social Study teachers. 3. The petitioners who had applied for appointment to the posts of sanskrit teacher did not succeed, although they have claimed that they fulfilled the qualification required for the posts and have obtained adequate marks. The petitioners have secured 46.7, 35 and 45.1 marks respectively (annexure p.2 ). The selection was challenged before a Division Bench of this court and the same was set aside vide judgment dated February 7, 1992. 4. The matter was, however, taken in appeal to the Supreme Court and the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court was set aside by HON BLE the Supreme Court with the following directions issued on october 6, 1992:- "in the facts and the circumstances of this case, we direct as under:- 1.5070 candidates selected and already appointed as a result of the impugned selection shall be deemed to have been regularly selected and appointed in their respective posts with all the benefits to which they are entitled under the service rules, regulations and instructions. 2. Mr. Kapil Sibbal has informed us that as on today there are 2015, 275, 47, 592 and 23 vacancies available in the cadre of j. B. T. Teachers, Masters Secondary School, Lecturer secondary School, Candv Teachers and Social Study Teachers respectively. The State of Haryana shall constitute committees to interview will those candidates who were called for interview by the earlier committee and were not selected. The State of Haryana shall constitute committees to interview will those candidates who were called for interview by the earlier committee and were not selected. Those candidates shall be called for interview by individual notices or by public notices as the State Government may deem fit. 3. A merit list of the candidates shall be prepared as a result of the interview category-wise. The criteria for a viva-voce test shall be the same as adopted in the earlier selection. 4. The existing vacancies in the cadres of JBT teachers, Masters secondary Schools, Lecturers Secondary School, Candv teachers and Society Study Teachers shall be filled by the state Government within one month of the preparation of the merit list. The merit list shall remain alive and operative for a period of one year after the date of its preparation and all the vacancies in the above cadres which may become available during the said period of one year shall be filled only out of the said merit list. " 5. A copy of the order dated October 6, 1992 passed by HON BLE the Supreme Court has been placed on record (annexure P-4 ). The case of the petitioners has throughout been that candidates with lower merit have been appointed on the basis of the selection made in pursuance to the advertisement issued on July 10, 1991 (annexure P-1 ). 6. In compliance of the direction issued by HON BLE the Supreme court, all the unselected candidates including the petitioners were interviewed by the same Selection Committee. The present writ petitioners had applied from District Karnal for the posts of Sanskrit Teacher in general category (male ). The vacant posts in District Karnal, from October 9, 1992 to October 8, 1993 had been filled up by the District Education officer, karnal, on the basis of merit. It was found that the last candidate in general category (male) from Karnal District had secured 50 marks whereas the petitioners had secured less than 50 marks. The petitioners are from the karnal District. However, the respondents also undertook an exercise to fill up the vacancies in those districts where no selected candidate was available and in some districts selected candidates were available but there was no vacancy. The petitioners are from the karnal District. However, the respondents also undertook an exercise to fill up the vacancies in those districts where no selected candidate was available and in some districts selected candidates were available but there was no vacancy. A State level merit list was prepared of the remaining selected candidates and accordingly eight vacancies were filled in general category (male) available in various districts by shifting the candidates from one district to another. The last candidate who was offered appointment had secured 49.02 marks. The petitioners who were far below the merit of last candidate in District Karnal could not make the grade. It is thus evident that posts in pursuance to advertisement issued on July 10, 1991 (annexure P-1)were filled up; and directions issued by the HON BLE Supreme Court on october 6, 1922 were complied with by October 8, 1993. The whole process was concluded on October 8, 1993. For filling up 453 posts of sanskrit teachers another advertisement was issued on March 22, 1994 (annexure P-5 ). Obviously, these posts were not covered by the directions issued by the HON BLE Supreme Court on October 9, 1992. The petitioners again applied and were not selected. They again filed CWP No.6692 of 1994 on various grounds. Their writ petition was disposed of by this court along with a bunch of petitions. These directions have been issued on the basis of statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as would be clear from the perusal of the judgment dated October 9, 2002 (Annexure P-7 ). Main judgment was delivered in CWP No.6258 of 1994. This Court has issued following directions on October 9, 2002:- "1. Within a period of two months from today, director, Secondary Education, Haryana shall collect the information regarding appointments made in pursuance of advertisement Annexure P1 and pass order (s) for appointment of the petitioners as sanskrit Teachers if it is found that any candidate less meritorious than them was appointed in 1994 or thereafter. 2. If the petitioners are found entitled to be appointed in terms of the direction No. (1) above, then they shall be given appointment from the date their juniors were appointed. The intervening period shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, fixation of pay, increments and grant of retiral benefits, but they shall not get monetary benefits till the date of joining. 3. The intervening period shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, fixation of pay, increments and grant of retiral benefits, but they shall not get monetary benefits till the date of joining. 3. If Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, comes to the conclusion that no candidate less meritorious to the petitioners was appointed on the basis of selection made in pursuance of advertisement Annexure P-1, then a reasoned communication shall be sent to them at the end of two months period. " 7. In pursuance to the above directions, respondent No.2 have found that no candidate lower in merit then the petitioners were appointed in 1994 in pursuance to advertisement dated March 22, 1994 (annexure P-5 ). Therefore, in compliance with direction No.3 issued by this Court c. W. P. No.3428 of 2006 [6] respondent No.2 has passed an order dated October 24, 2003 (annexure P-8)which is challenged in this petition. According to the operative part of this order it has been concluded by respondent No.2 that no candidate less meritorious than the petitioner was appointed and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for appointment was liable to be rejected. The position becomes evident further from the order passed by this Court while dismissing cocp no.282 of 2004 decided on July 11, 2005 (annexure P-9 ). The petitioner in the contempt petition had alleged disobedience of the directions dated october 9, 1992 passed by this Court (annexure P-7 ). This Court had noticed the claim made by the petitioner that one Amar Nath, respondent no.3, has been appointed as Sanskrit teacher in Karnal who had obtained less marks as against the petitioner who had secured more marks. 8. This court also noticed the stand of respondent No.2 which clarifies that no person inferior in merit than the petitioner has been appointed in pursuance to the selection made in the year 1994 in District Kaithal. The aforementioned stand of respondent no.2, along with the view expressed by the Contempt Court reads as under:- "on notice of motion having been issued, sh. R. K. Khullar, the Director Secondary Education, haryana has filed his reply stating that no person inferior in merit than the petitioner has been appointed in pursuance to the selection made in 1994. The aforementioned stand of respondent no.2, along with the view expressed by the Contempt Court reads as under:- "on notice of motion having been issued, sh. R. K. Khullar, the Director Secondary Education, haryana has filed his reply stating that no person inferior in merit than the petitioner has been appointed in pursuance to the selection made in 1994. During the course of hearing the learned State counsel has explained on the basis of record that Amar Nath was selected in the previous selection made in the year 1991 and therefore, the assertion made in para 3 of the contempt petition with regard to the aforementioned Amar Nath cannot be accepted because both are not comparable as the petitioner was selected in the selection of 1994. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for contempt is made out nor any violation of the directions dated 19.10.2002 issued by this Court is established. I am satisfied that the directions have been complied with in letter and spirit. Dismissed. Rule discharged. " we have heard Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has argued that according to direction No.3 issued by this court on October 9, 2003 (annexure P-7), the respondents were under an obligation to consider the inter-se merit of the petitioners in comparison to the merit secured by the selected candidates in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 1991 (annexure P-1 ). Learned counsel has maintained that in the judgment dated October 9, 2002 (annexure P-7), this court has referred to the advertisement of the year 1991 by citing the same as annexure P-1. Learned counsel has maintained that the impugned order dated October 24, 2003 (annexure P-8) does not comply with the direction issued by this Court on October 9, 2002 (annexure P-7), and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9 Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that this petition is devoid of merit and thus liable to be dismissed. We are unable to read the judgment dated October 9, 2002 (annexure P-7) rendered by this court, in the manner sought to be suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9 Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that this petition is devoid of merit and thus liable to be dismissed. We are unable to read the judgment dated October 9, 2002 (annexure P-7) rendered by this court, in the manner sought to be suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is appropriate to mention that the exercise in pursuance to the directions issued by HON BLE the Supreme Court had already been undertaken as is evident from the order annexure P-8. The comparative merit of the petitioners vis--vis the selected candidates has been examined in detail. It has been found that the petitioners have not secured more marks than the last selected candidate in Karnal District. In other words, no candidate less meritorious than the petitioners has been appointed, nor anything has been shown to us by the petitioners proving that they are more meritorious. 10. The findings recorded by this Court in COCP No.282 of 2004 also shows the stand of the respondent that no person inferior in merit than the petitioner has been appointed in pursuance to the selection made in the year 1994. It is further evident from the perusal of the order passed in the contempt petition (annexure P-9) that there could not be any comparison between the petitioner and Amar Nath, respondent No.3 as Amar nath belonged to the select list of 1991. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the petition. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.