CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 9895 of 2000 Special Leave Petition (civil) 10512 of 2000 PETITIONER: Pratap Singh RESPONDENT: State of Haryana & Ors., Shri Bhajan Lal & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/2002 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL. JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J.
In these petitions, orders passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissing the Letter Patent
Appeals affirming the order passed by the learned
Single Judge are under challenge. The petitioner filed
writ petitions claiming them to have been filed in the
public interest questioning the validity, legality and
propriety of selection made by the Haryana Public
Service Commission (HPSC) and appointments made
pursuant to the selection by the State Government to
the post of District Food and Supplies Controller
relating to respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000
and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petitions mainly on two grounds (1) the petitioner
not being one of the contestants for the post of
District Food and Supplies Controller and that the writ
petition had been filed only to gain political
advantage as he was Member of Legislative Assembly in
1967, hence he had no locus standi to file the writ
petition; (2) the selected candidates were appointed to
the post of District food and Supplies Controller in
the year 1981 i.e. nearly 16 years prior to filing of
the writ petitions. There was no stay of appointment
of the selected candidates and they have been
continuing in service and further they had earned two
promotions in 1985 and 1989. If the petitioner was
really aggrieved, he should have made representation to
the Department that the selected candidates i.e. the
respondents were not qualified for the post.
On appeal, the Division Bench although did not
find any justification to condone the delay of 386
days, yet considered the appeals on merits. The
Division Bench noticed that out of the 16 candidates,
who were called for interview, the HPSC selected
respondent no. 4 Achint Ram Godara, the petitioner
himself was not one of the candidates for the post and
none of the candidates who had not been selected,
challenged his appointment; that during the pendency of
the writ petition, the respondent no. 4 had earned two
promotions in the year 1985 and 1989 and even the
review application filed by the writ petitioner before
the learned Single Judge was also dismissed on
8.8.1997; respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P No. 10512/2000
were similarly placed; the Division Bench did not find
any good ground to differ with the findings recorded by
the learned Single Judge and concurring with the
reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, Letter
Patent Appeals also were dismissed. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner is before this Court in these
petitions.
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in S.L.P. no. 9895/2000 submitted that the
High Court went wrong in holding that the petitioner
had no locus standi to file the writ petition. He
urged that the appointment secured on the basis of the
forged and bogus certificate of experience ought to
have been annulled particularly when the Director
General, State Vigilance Bureau had found that the
experience certificate produced by the respondent No. 4
was bogus; at any rate, the minimum that could have
been done was to direct some authority at least to hold
enquiry as to the bogus and forged certificates.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P.
No. 10512/2000 while adopting the submissions made by
Shri P.P. Rao, reiterated the submissions made before
the High Court.
In opposition, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, the learned senior
counsel for respondent nos. 4, 8 and 9 in S.L.P. No.
10512/2000, Mr. A.Sharan, learned senior counsel for
respondent no.6 and the learned counsel representing
other respondents made submissions supporting the
impugned orders.
Mr. M.S.Ganesh, learned senior counsel submitted
that on earlier occasion, a candidate whose claim for
recruitment to the same post was overlooked for want of
experience as Executive Officer had approached the High
Court unsuccessfully. When the matter was brought to
this Court in Mohinder Singh vs. State of Haryana &
Ors. (1989 (3) SCC 93), this Court did not disturb the
recruitment of the respondents who had been appointed
pursuant to the selection. The learned senior counsel
for the respondents also submitted that in the light of
a statement made in the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the State and the HPSC, no case is made out
even to conduct any enquiry as to the alleged bogus
certificates said to have been produced by the selected
candidates.
In our view, at this length of time, it may be
unnecessary to deal with the question of locus standi
of the petitioner to maintain the petitions. We
proceed to consider on the merits of the contentions
raised. It is not in dispute that respondents who were
selected to the post of District Food and Supplies
Controller were appointed in the year 1981; they are
continuing in service and they were given two
promotions, one in 1985 and the other in 1989; there
was no interim order issued by any court or authority
restraining from making appointments of the selected
candidates or continuing them in service and giving
promotions to them. The petitioner is not a person who
is directly affected in any way. We are not saying
this for the purpose of examining his locus standi.
As already stated, we do not intend to go into that
question in this case at this stage. When there was
serious dispute between the parties as to whether the
certificates were genuine or bogus or forged, the High
Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and
227 could not have efficaciously decided such dispute.
If the petitioner was serious about the allegations of
forgery or fraud alleged to have been committed by
respondent No. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondent
Nos. 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000, he could have
pursued with the competent authorities including the
State Government or he could have initiated action on
criminal side by filing complaint. In case the
competent authority/court had found the respondent no.
4 or other selected candidates guilty of the offences,
further action could have been taken for removing them
from service. That having not been done and taking
note of the fact that the appointments were made as
early as in 1981 i.e. 21 years back and that during
this period, the respondents got two promotions, in our
view, the High court was right and justified in not
disturbing the selection and appointment of the
respondents.
In the case of Moninder Singh vs. State of Haryana
and Ors. (supra), this Court in para 11, referring to
the selected candidates in the very same selection and
appointments made thereto, has stated thus:-
“The selected candidates were, however, not
impleaded as respondents in the writ petition
and attempt to implead them at this stage is
bound to prejudice him. They have now been
in service for more than eight years and
respondent 4 has even been holding a
promotional post for some time. We do not
think in such a situation there would be any
justification to allow challenge to the
recruitment of the respondents.”
It appears in this very case also, it was brought
to the notice of the Court that an enquiry was
undertaken by the Government against some of the
selected candidates on the allegation that forged /
false certificates had been produced both in support of
qualification / eligibility and that in the enquiry a
prima facie case had been made out but this Court did
not express any opinion about the same stating that it
shall be for the State Government to deal with the
question.
Our attention was drawn to the judgment of the
High court in Criminal (Misc.) No. 3190-M/89 to which
the State of Haryana was also a party. In that case,
F.I.R. No. 125 dated 13.4.1989 under Sections 420, 467,
471, 466, 161, 120-B IPC lodged at P.S. City Hisar was
sought to be quashed by two of the respondents namely
Lila Dhar and Dharmpal. The F.I.R. was lodged by Shri
Satyapaul, Advocate, Fatehbagh in which almost all the
allegations which are made against the respondent no. 4
in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in
S.L.P. No. 10512/2000 were made. The High Court by a
detailed and considered order dated October 11, 1991,
quashed the F.I.R. accepting the petitions filed by
some of the respondents herein. It appears the said
order was not challenged any further. Possibly, having
regard to this situation and at this length of time the
authorities did not pursue the matter any further as to
holding of further enquiry or taking action pursuant to
the report of the Vigilance Director General against
the respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and
respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000. A
submission was also made on behalf of some respondents
particularly respondents 5 and 6 in S.L.P. No.
10512/2000 that even no prima facie case was made out
against them in the enquiry.
Thus, having regard to all aspects, we feel not
inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136
of the Constitution of India to interfere with the
impugned orders. Consequently, these Special Leave
Petitions are dismissed. No costs.