Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 120 (PNJ)

Kuldeep Singh Dahiya v. State of Haryana

2014-01-14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2014
Augustine George Masih, J. Petitioners have approached this Court, impugning the selection criteria adopted by the respondents for filling up the posts of Trade Instructors in the Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Haryana and as a consequence thereof the subsequent selection and appointment made in pursuance thereof. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the respondents could not have resorted to the shortlisting of the candidates for the purpose of interview, especially when the said aspect was neither mentioned in the advertisement nor do the statutory rules provide for the same. He, on this basis, contends that the selection and the criteria adopted by the respondents, thus, cannot sustain. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and others, (2003) 3 SCC 548 and Dilip Kumar Ghosh and others v. Chairman and others, (2005) 7 SCC 567 . While relying upon the said judgments, counsel for the petitioners contends that action of the Selection Committee in shortlisting the candidates is not sustainable. 2. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the selected candidates have not been impleaded as party respondents. He, therefore, contends that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Rashmi Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (12) SCC 724 . His further contention is that the shortlisting can be resorted to by the Selection Committee even in the absence of any statutory rules or instructions. Further even there is no mention in this regard in the advertisement. He contends that where large number of applications are received, which are unmanageable and, therefore, the resort to the said shortlisting would be justified. He in this regard has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi v. Union of India and others, (2008) 1 SCC 362 , where such a process of shortlisting has been accepted to be a justifiable norm. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 3. He in this regard has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi v. Union of India and others, (2008) 1 SCC 362 , where such a process of shortlisting has been accepted to be a justifiable norm. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time when the petitioners had approached this Court, the selection had not been finalised by the respondents and, therefore, there is no necessity to implead the selected candidates as party respondents. 4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 5. The qualification, criteria adopted and the reasons for resorting to shortlisting the candidates by the respondents have been reproduced in Para 3 of the affidavit dated 21.3.2013 filed by the respondents in pursuance of the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by this Court. The same reads as follow:-- 2. The Qualification for the post of Machinist Instructor in which the petitioner as under:-- 3. That applications of candidates were examine and short list was prepared on the basis of Essential Qualification and Criteria fixed by Govt. the Criteria for selection for the above posts was as under:-- 4. That on the basis of Criteria and Qualification mentioned above merit list was prepared and petitioner stands at Sr. No. 11 in the merit list. It is pertinent to mention here that 71 application were received for the machinist Instructor against the 3 post. 12 candidates from the merit list after short list were called for interview. The petitioner was also call for interview but he couldn't be selected because he was not in merit list. Since he stands at Sr. No. 11. So 3 candidate who were top in merits were selected on the basis of Criteria and Qualification mentioned above. The petitioner also fulfilled the requisite qualification but he did not stand in the merit list of the selected candidates. 6. The above affidavit clearly indicates the criteria, which was adopted by the respondents and the reasons why the shortlisting was resorted to. In my considered view, the criteria, as adopted by the respondents for shortlisting and the reasons assigned for the same, are quite justified keeping in view the essential qualifications required for the post. 6. The above affidavit clearly indicates the criteria, which was adopted by the respondents and the reasons why the shortlisting was resorted to. In my considered view, the criteria, as adopted by the respondents for shortlisting and the reasons assigned for the same, are quite justified keeping in view the essential qualifications required for the post. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi (supra) fully supports the action of the respondents and it has been held that where there is no rule or instructions and there is no mention in the advertisement, then resort to shortlisting would be taken in case the candidates are large and the posts are less. The action of the respondents to shortlist the candidates, thus, cannot be said to be without any justification or contrary to law. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners primarily are those where the basic qualifications were ignored by the respondents while making the recruitments. These judgments do not relate to shortlisting of the candidates and the eligibility of the candidates was not in issue in the present case. The judgments, thus, would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. As regards the objection of counsel for the respondents that the present writ petition would not be maintainable in the present form in the absence of the selected candidates having not been impleaded as party respondents, the said assertion does carry weight and deserves to be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Rashmi Mishra (supra). The plea of counsel for the petitioners that at the time when the petitioners had filed the writ petition, the selection process was not complete and, therefore, he did not know the selected candidates cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition the selection has finalised and the selected candidates have been appointed to the respective posts. No efforts have been made by the petitioners to subsequently implead the selected candidates as party respondents. No efforts have been made by the petitioners to subsequently implead the selected candidates as party respondents. It is by now well settled that a person who is selected and appointed to a post and if such a selection and appointment is challenged, he has a right to be heard and in case such a resort is not adhered to, then the principles of natural justice would be violated. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. _