Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 569 (UTT)

Lalit Prasad v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-12-14

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate with Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the Bank/respondents. 4. Both these petitions have been filed before this Court challenging the selection process undertaken by the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Almora for recruiting Class-IV employees. 5. Admittedly, an advertisement was published by the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Almora on 21.10.2014 in a newspaper calling applications from eligible candidates for the Class-IV posts. The minimum qualification was High School for the said post. The entire selection was based on an “interview”. This is an admitted position that the total marks for the interview are 50. There is nothing other than an interview, on which a candidate has to be evaluated, except for 5 marks out of 50 marks which are reserved for “past services” of a candiate. 6. In the first writ petition being WPSS No.1889 of 2015 (Lalit Prasad Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others), petitioner has participated in the selection process. In second petition i.e., (Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others), the petitioner has not participated in the selection process but has challenged the same on the grounds that 50 marks in the interview is the sole criteria for the selection and it hence is not a fair procedure! 7. In these matters, counter affidavits have been filed by the Bank. 8. As far as petitioner (Lalit Prasad) is concerned, a preliminary objection has been raised by the Bank inasmuch as the petitioner (Lalit Prasad) has already participated in the selection process and having realized that he has no chances in the selection process, he has filed the writ petition before this Court challenging the selection process and this cannot be allowed. 9. The procedure has been laid down by the Registrar under Section 122 (3) of the Uttaranchal Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 which reads as under:- “122. 9. The procedure has been laid down by the Registrar under Section 122 (3) of the Uttaranchal Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 which reads as under:- “122. (1) The State Government may constitute an authority or authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed, for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of co-operative societies, or a class of co-operative societies, and may require such authority or authorities to frame regulations regarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service including disciplinary control of such employees and, subject to the provisions contained in Section 70, settlement of dispute between an employee of a co-operative society and the society. (2) The regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the approval of the State Government and shall, after such approval, be published in the Gazette, and take effect from the date of such publication and shall supersede any regulations made under Section 121. (3) Direct recruitment of Employee of Class III and IV at District level shall be made by the committee constituted by the Registrar and procedure laid down by Registrar Co-operative societies.” 10. It is an admitted position that the selection of Class-IV employees at District level at the Cooperative Bank and for that the procedure has been laid down by the Registrar. The Registrar has laid down the procedure vide order dated 13.12.2013 which is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition No.1889 of 2015. All it says is that the appointment to the post of Class-IV will be done on the basis of interview for which there are 50 marks. 11. It is also an admitted position that subsequently an amendment was brought to the said order by the Registrar and such retrenched employees who have already gained experience in Cooperative Bank will be given one mark for each year of service, with a maximum of five marks. Apart from above, there are no other criteria for evaluating the candidate for the said selection process, although minimum qualification for the selection process is High school. 12. In view of this Court, this process is not a fair procedure at all. Once the entire criteria for selection is interview then it would mean that the Selection Committee has unlimited subjective powers as there is no objective criteria by which they can evaluate a candidate in the present case. 12. In view of this Court, this process is not a fair procedure at all. Once the entire criteria for selection is interview then it would mean that the Selection Committee has unlimited subjective powers as there is no objective criteria by which they can evaluate a candidate in the present case. This procedure is inherently bad and against public policy and cannot be allowed to stand by this Court. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Lalit Prasad has already participated in the interview and since he has already participated in the process cannot be allowed to challenge the legality and illegality of the procedure, as he has participated and having failed to qualify, cannot challenge the process. All the same, the second petitioner (Manoj Kumar) has not participated in the interview at all. What is challenged before this Court is a process which is patently illegal and unfair? Moreover, in view of this Court, even Mr. Lalit Prasad though has participated in the selection process but it cannot be said that he has failed to qualify as the result of the selection process are not out as yet. He has definitely participated in the selection process but before the result could be announced, he has already challenged the selection process before this Court. In any case, since there is inherent flaw in the entire procedure itself and even if Mr. Lalit Prasad (petitioner in WPSS No.1889 of 2015) cannot challenge the selection procedure, another petitioner (Mr. Manoj Kumar in WPSS No.2389 of 2015) can very well do so. The writ petitions succeed and the advertisement dated 21.10.2014 and order dated 13.12.2013 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed. 13. The entire procedure is quashed. Let the respondents initiate a fresh selection process in accordance with law. 14. No order as to costs.