Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 666 (HP)

Dan Singh v. PNB Bank

2015-06-04

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The respondent No.2 advertised 18 vacancies of Peons. The advertisement occurred in “Hindi Danik Jagran Daily” on 28.11.2014. The petitioners applied for the post advertised. The petitioner No.1 appeared for interview before the duly constituted selection committee on 19.3.2015, whereas, petitioner No.2 appeared for interview on 20.3.2015 before the duly constituted selection committee. Respondents No. 3 and 4 were declared selected. The Selection of respondents No. 3 and 4, as, peons by the interviewing committee/selection committee, has been assailed by the petitioners. The espousal in the writ petition of the selection of respondents No. 3 and 4 as peons by the interviewing board/selection committee concerned, being vitiated is anchored on the fact that the advertisement notice aforesaid inviting applications of the aspirants for theirs being considered for selection to the post of Peons, explicitly with specificity enumerated an express condition of the aspirants being liable for consideration for selection, only in the event of their names standing registered with the employment exchanges of Mandi & Kullu Districts only. However, the restriction aforesaid as imposed in the advertisement notice comprised in Annexure P-1 and P- 1/T, inasmuch, as, only those applicants being eligible for consideration for selection as peons whose names stand registered with the employment exchanges of Mandi and Kullu Districts has been contended to have been transgressed by the respondents comprised in their act of theirs selecting respondent No.3 whose name stands not registered with the employment exchanges of Mandi and Kullu Districts, and respondent No.4 whose selection has been contended to be ingrained with the vice of nepotism and favoritism on the score of his being a private driver of the Circle Head of Punjab National Bank, Mandi. Even the selection of respondent No.3 has been contended to be ingrained with the vice of nepotism inasmuch as his being the son of the Sr. Manager, Circle Office, PNB Hamirpur and it being the motivating factor for his selection as peon by the respondents. Even the selection of respondent No.3 has been contended to be ingrained with the vice of nepotism inasmuch as his being the son of the Sr. Manager, Circle Office, PNB Hamirpur and it being the motivating factor for his selection as peon by the respondents. Adverting to the initial espousal before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners of the name of respondent No.3 though not registered with the employment exchanges of Kullu and Mandi Districts, though enjoined by the advertisement notice comprised in Annexure P-1 and P- 1/T to be standing registration with the employment exchanges aforesaid, hence rendering his selection to the post aforesaid by the selection committee concerned to be flawed, is a perse fallacious argument besides antithetical to the constitutional tenets of equality of opportunity in public employment. The argument as espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioners when stands muted by the overpowering effect of constitutional tenets of equality of opportunity in public employment, necessarily then the selection of respondent No.3 by the interviewing committee concerned for appointment to the post of Peon, cannot stand to be not faulted. Even otherwise the restriction or the fetter imposed in the advertisement notice, inasmuch, as its curtailing the right of participation, to only those aspirants whose names stood registered with the employment exchanges of Mandi and Kullu Districts, is rather restrictive of a wider participation of all eligible aspirants. If the said restriction is permitted to hold sway it would abridge as well as trammel the right of all eligible aspirants which for reiteration would be afflicted with the malady of its infringing the constitutional tenets of equality of opportunity in public employment. As such, the restriction imposed in the advertisement notice to the extent that only those candidates/aspirants whose names stand registered with the employment exchanges of Mandi and Kullu Districts would be fit to be considered for selection as Peons under the respondents No.1 and 2, is declared ultra vires articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In face thereof the factum of respondent No.3 standing not registered with the employment exchanges of Mandi and Kullu Districts would not outweigh his selection by the interviewing/selection committee concerned. In face thereof the factum of respondent No.3 standing not registered with the employment exchanges of Mandi and Kullu Districts would not outweigh his selection by the interviewing/selection committee concerned. Now adverting to the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the selection of respondents No. 3 and 4 is harbored or hinged upon nepotism and favoritism for the reasons aforesaid as meted out in the petition, also cannot carry any weight or substance, especially when the post for which they aspired to be considered for selection, is not a selection post, rather is a class IV post, the suitability for appointment to which post is to be gauged and fathomed on the parameters as deemed fit to be formulated by the interviewing board/selection committee concerned. The awarding of marks by the selection committee concerned to them on the basis of subjective assessment of their suitability, on an evaluation of their personality synchronizing with the apposite formulated parameters designed by the selection committee concerned, renders as such their subjective assessment by the interviewing/selection committee concerned, especially when they stood selected not against a selection post rather to a class IV post, to be invulnerable to impeachment especially when their suitability for selection within the formulated parameters have been concluded by the selection committee concerned, to be not wanting in any respect. Moreover hence it cannot also be said with any formidability that their selection for appointment is besmirched by any taint of favoritism. There is not merit in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed, so also, the pending applications, if any.