Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 323 (HP)

Satish Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-10

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. In question is the selection process undertaken by the respondents for recruitment to a post of Salesman in respondent No.4-Society. 2..... (i) Respondent No.4 is a Society registered under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1956. The Society decided to fill-up a post of Salesman at Sub Depot Chhuman. Accordingly, respondent No.4-Society issued a notice vide Annexure P-2 inviting applications from eligible candidates. The last date of submission of application forms mentioned in the notice was 10.03.2021. (ii) Petitioner No.1 & 2 along with respondents No.5, 6 & 7, applied for the post in question. Interviews were conducted by Committee headed by the Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Jhanduta, District Bilaspur. Petitioner No.1 and respondents No.5-7 appeared in the interview.Respondent No.5 was declared successful.Feeling aggrieved against the selection process as a whole, petitioners (Sh. Satish Kumar and Smt. Poonam Devi) have instituted this writ petition on 28.01.2022. Pursuant to an interim order passed in this petition on 31.01.2022, the respondents have kept the post of Salesman in question vacant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised, following two contentions:- (i) The respondents have incorrectly not awarded any marks in the selection process for “training in Cooperation”. Marks were required to be allotted to the participating applicants, in view of Rules Relating to terms of Employment and Working Conditions of the Employees of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Societies, 2001.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, including learned Deputy Advocate General while opposing the above contention submitted that the Rules in question had undergone amendment on 09.07.2019, inter alia, revising the criteria for allocation of marks. As per revised criteria, which governed the selection process, no marks were to be awarded for ‘training in Cooperation’. The amended criteria for allocation of marks in terms of order dated 09.07.2019, was in place at the time of issuing the notice calling for applications. Accordingly, no marks were allocated for ‘training in Cooperation’ to any of the participating applicants.In view of amendment of the Rules with respect to the allocation of marks, as in-force on the date of issuance of advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that his first contention does not survive and has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, no marks were allocated for ‘training in Cooperation’ to any of the participating applicants.In view of amendment of the Rules with respect to the allocation of marks, as in-force on the date of issuance of advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that his first contention does not survive and has been rendered infructuous. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, next contended that petitioner No.2 had not even been called for the interviews conducted by the respondents for the post in question. Respondents held the interviews, wherein only petitioner No.1 and respondents No.5, 6 & 7 participated. Respondent No.5 was selected in the interview. Irreparable loss and injury has been caused by the respondents to petitioner No.2, who despite having applied within the stipulated period was neither informed about the interview date nor called upon to appear in the same.Considering petitioner’s above objection, learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to produce the record, more specifically pertaining to information given to petitioner No.2 about the scheduled date for the interview and for appearance in the interview.During the course of the hearing, learned Deputy Advocate General produced the record. The record does not show any document from which it could be inferred that petitioner No.2 was given intimation for appearing in the interview on a particular date. The absence of documentary evidence suggesting any intimation given to petitioner No.2 for appearing in the interview and the date of convening such interview, is an admitted fact.To a query of the Court, learned Deputy Advocate General on the basis of instructions imparted to her by Mr. Lenin Chandel, Secretary, respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 had called the applicants/candidates only on phone and requested them to appear for interview on 11.01.2022. It has to be observed here that respondent No.4 is a Society constituted under the provisions of H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1956. It is required to act and conduct itself in accordance with law. The least that was expected from respondent No.4 was to issue call letters to all the participating applicants including petitioner No.2 for their appearance on the scheduled date for interview. Admittedly, this well-established mode had not been adopted by respondent No.4. It is required to act and conduct itself in accordance with law. The least that was expected from respondent No.4 was to issue call letters to all the participating applicants including petitioner No.2 for their appearance on the scheduled date for interview. Admittedly, this well-established mode had not been adopted by respondent No.4. In fact, no mode having sanctity in law was adopted by respondent No.4 for informing the applicants for appearing in the interview, save and except respondent No.4’s bald assertion that the candidates were called for appearing in the interview on phone. Respondent No.4’s self- professed case of apprising the applicants about the date of interview only on phone for their participation in the interview, cannot be countenanced at all. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Pankaj Kumar , [Civil Appeal No. 6860 of 2021 decided on 18.11.2021] , Hon’ble Apex Court had rejected the argument of a candidate that the intimation given through SMS in the mobile number furnished by the candidate, about physical fitness test and document verification is not sufficient. However, in the instant case, there is no proof of any intimation given to participants, more particularly petitioner No.2 about the scheduled date for interview and appearance therein. Petitioner No.2’s right to be considered for the post has been seriously infringed by the illegal actions of the respondents. 5. There is patent violation of the principles of natural justice on part of the respondents. Even the basic procedure required to be followed in the selection process has not been adhered to by respondent No.4. Hence, the selection process in question is quashed and set aside. The respondents, however, are at liberty to conduct fresh selection process in accordance with law and applicable rules. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue necessary directions to all concerned quarters for following the basic procedure well established in law for conducting the selection processes. Necessary communication in this regard be issued within two weeks. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.