Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 69 (HP)

Sukhvinder Singh v. State of H. P.

2021-02-22

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The respondents concerned, made an advertisement, wherethrough they invited application(s), for recruitments to 1063 posts, of, Police Constables, and, in pursuance whereof, the petitioner applied against the reserved therethrough(s), hence, posts for OBC category. A perusal, of, Annexure P-8, discloses that he belongs to, the ‘Other Backward Class’. The date of making, of, Annexure P-8, is, 9.8.2011. The writ petitioner, un-contestedly belongs to the ‘Labana’ community, which is declared, as, an ‘Other Backward Class’, in Himachal Pradesh, by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The writ petitioner, though, became eligible, for being invited, and, for ensuring his participation, in the personality test, however, he was required to, as scribed in para-11, of Annexure P-10, produce before the Screening Committee concerned, rather are necessary and relevant documents (in original), copies whereof became uploaded, in contemporaniety, vis-à-vis, his submitting his online application. The respondents concerned, in their reply(s) to the writ-petition, do not, contest the factum, of, the writ petitioner, in consonance therewith, uploading Annexure P-8, alongwith his online application. Necessarily, hence he was only required to be producing original(s) thereof, before the Screening Committee concerned, wherebeforewhom, he became invited, to face the Personality Test. Though, the petitioner produced before the Screening Committee, the original, of, Annexure P-8, however, the respondents declined to accept the same, on the ground, that the timeline, of, operation, of, Annexure P-8, rather thereat becoming terminated or expired. Obviously hence they raised doubts, vis-à-vis, the petitioner, belonging to the ‘Other Backward Class’. Succinctly, the mandate, cast in Para-11, of, Annexure P- 10, was, as aforestated, completely complied with, by the writ petitioner, and, also, thereupon, the respondents, rather, prima-facie, become estopped to, in contemporaniety, vis-à-vis, the writ petitioner, facing the Personality Test, before the Screening Committee concerned, rather to reject his candidature, despite his producing, or holding, thereat the original of Annexure P- 8, as he was required to hold or produce, before the Screening Committee concerned. The reason, as becomes meted, by the respondent concerned to decline his candidature, inasmuch as, at the stage of the petitioner, making his appearance, before the Screening Committee concerned, for his being subjected, to, a Personaltiy Test, becomes grooved, in, the factum, qua rather the timeline or the longevity, of, Annexure P-8, respectively, ending, or not thereat surviving. The reason, as becomes meted, by the respondent concerned to decline his candidature, inasmuch as, at the stage of the petitioner, making his appearance, before the Screening Committee concerned, for his being subjected, to, a Personaltiy Test, becomes grooved, in, the factum, qua rather the timeline or the longevity, of, Annexure P-8, respectively, ending, or not thereat surviving. However, the afore meted declining reason(s), besides creating rather, for, all the afore reasons, the bar of estoppels(s), hence against its raising, it also becomes legally unworthy, (i) given, (a) a deep circumspect perusal, of, Annexure P-8, disclosing that therein no timeline, vis-à-vis, the operation, or, longevity thereof, becoming pronounced, (b) the afore lack, of, pronouncement, in, Annexure P-8, vis-à-vis, the timeline, vis-à-vis, its operation, obviously, begets an inference, that Annexure P-8, continued to hold perenniality of operation, unless either in Annexure P-10, or in some validly made instructions, by the respondents, an echoing became borne, that dehors no timeline, becoming pronounced, vis-à-vis, the longevity, of, operation, of, Annexure P-8, yet longevity thereof, lasting only upto one year. Since, both the afore(s) are not existing on record, thereupon, the validity, of, Annexure P-8,conspicuously when it does not carry therein any timeline, vis-à-vis, its operation, or, survival, naturally did last even upto stage, of, his becoming invited, by the respondents, for facing a Personality Test. (c) Since the writ petitioner, belongs, to, the “Labana” community, community whereof, becomes declared, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, as an “Other Backward Class”, and, though apposite satiation, vis-à-vis, any apposite therewith income criteria, may be material, for considering the writ petitioner, to be yet, falling within the OBC category, (d) thereupon, rather the respondents were also enjoined to source from all the departments, of, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the requisite information, whether the ‘Labana’ community, rather declared by the authority(ies) concerned, as an ‘Other Backward Class’ community, making social and economic marches, beyond the one(s) as becomes enshrined in the earlier thereto criteria, hence fixed for the relevant purpose, or even material became enjoined, to, become adduced by the respondents, hence making candid displays, vis-à-vis, extantly, it being ordered, to, be deleted as an “Other Backward Class”. However, the respondent concerned, failed to discharge the afore constitutional obligation, inasmuch, as they/it, did not, source the afore information, from the codepartments. However, the respondent concerned, failed to discharge the afore constitutional obligation, inasmuch, as they/it, did not, source the afore information, from the codepartments. Contrarily, the writ petitioner, has dispelled the afore aura, of, suspicion, purportedly enveloping Annexure P-8, through his producing, though, subsequent to the completion, of, the relevant process, hence the OBC certificate, borne in Annexure P-9. 2. Be that as it may, even though, after completion, of, the relevant recruitment process, the obtaining), by the petitioner, rather of Annexure P-9, containing echoing(s), vis-à-vis, his belonging to the OBC category, may bar him to make reliance thereon, for his nowat validly questioning the fully completed recruitment process, (i) nonetheless, the strength, of, the afore bar becomes weakened, through the afore made reasons, by this Court, whereon(s) a conclusion becomes drawn, qua Annexure P-8, surviving, even after the stage, of, his being invited to face the Personality Test, before the Screening Test, and that his ouster therefrom, was grossly untenable. Fortification to the afore inference, becomes, marshaled, from, upon this Court, entwining Annexure P-8, with Annexure P-9, and, reiteratedly, wherefrom, the contention(s), of, the writ petitioner, vis-à-vis, his being declared a member, of, the apposite OBC Community, within the State of Himachal Pradesh, community whereof, becomes, nomenclatured as the ‘Labana’ community, do acquire vindication. Furthermore, additional strength thereto becomes acquired from, the respondents, failing to source from the co-departments, of, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, any apposite information, vis-à-vis, the afore community, nowat becoming, de-declared, as an ‘Other Backward Class’. 3. The learned counsel for the selected candidates, who became arrayed as private respondents, in the extant writ petition, has contended that want of joinder(s), in the array of respondents, of, all apposite selected candidates, renders, the writ petition to be mis-constituted. However, the afore contention, is not, legally worthy, as, the debarring, of, the writ petitioner, from facing the Personality Test, upon the afore flimsy ground, has disabled him to secure marks qua therewith, which otherwise, under law, he was entitled to be awarded, upon an objective assessment, of, his personality, by the Screening Committee concerned. Necessarily, the afore entitlement(s), of, the writ petitioner, to receive marks, visà- vis, the afore, cannot be denied, merely upon the afore ground, as becomes addressed, by the learned counsel, for the selected candidates. Necessarily, the afore entitlement(s), of, the writ petitioner, to receive marks, visà- vis, the afore, cannot be denied, merely upon the afore ground, as becomes addressed, by the learned counsel, for the selected candidates. Moreover, the afore ground would become meritworthy, only upon, the petitioner challenging, the, awarding, of, marks, to, the selected candidates concerned, since, the afore challenge, is, not made, thereupon his ouster, from the relevant Personality Test, can yet be challenged, dehors non-arraying(s), of, all selected candidates, as, co-respondents. 4. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing, for the private respondents, has, also argued before this Court that after the completion, of, the recruitment process, the writ petitioner, becomes barred, to cast any challenge thereto. However, even the vigor, of, the afore submission, becomes blunted, as the afore ground, is, available to the respondents concerned, only when he had completely participated in the recruitment process. Since the writ petitioner, did not, completely participate in the relevant process, rather, his candidature, for the afore reasons, became rejected, and also obviously, when he was declined, the, valid opportunity, to receive awarding(s), of, marks, by the Screening Committee concerned, in the apposite Personality Test, and, when the afore declining(s) to him, became invalidated by this Court, thereupon, he is, even, at this stage, entitled to raise a challenge to the rejection, of, his candidature, for the afore purpose, by the respondent concerned. 5. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, has argued that since a mechanism, is, cast in para-15, of, Annexure P-10, for there through(s), the writ petitioner, nursing his grievance(s), against the purportedly tainted, selection process, thereupon, the afore alternative remedy, being recoursable by him, than his recoursing the extant remedy. However, the therein encapsulated mechanism, is neither a befitting alternate, remedy to the extant remedy, nor is an efficacious mode, as the therein mechanism, is not carved, in pursuance, to statutory rules, hence drafted, in consonance with the mandate, of, Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Contrarily, it is merely a guideline(s) issued by the respondent concerned, and, does not, warrant recoursing thereto by the writ petitioner, and, also reiteratedly, does not, bar this writ Court, to, exercise, its constitutional obligation, of, judicially reviewing, the afore untenable ouster, of, the writ petitioner, from his facing the Personality Test, before the Screening Committee concerned. 6. Contrarily, it is merely a guideline(s) issued by the respondent concerned, and, does not, warrant recoursing thereto by the writ petitioner, and, also reiteratedly, does not, bar this writ Court, to, exercise, its constitutional obligation, of, judicially reviewing, the afore untenable ouster, of, the writ petitioner, from his facing the Personality Test, before the Screening Committee concerned. 6. In summa, there is merit in the writ petition, and, the same is allowed. The respondents, are, directed to, forthwith, constitute a Screening Committee, for, objectively analyzing the personality, of, the writ petitioner, and/or for theirs putting him to face the Personality Test, and, the Screening Committee, is, directed, to objectively award, qua therewith hence marks, to the writ petitioner. Furthermore, they are, directed to also, upon the petitioner facing, the apposite Personality Test, and, upon his succeeding to, after completion, of, all the codal formailities, offer him an appointment letter, against the advertised post. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.