S.M. Gupta And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 August, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                 C.W.P. No. 17406 of 2008
                                        DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2009

S.M. Gupta and others

                                                         .... PETITIONERS

                                  Versus

State of Haryana and others

                                                      ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:    Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Ms. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana,
            for respondent No.1.

            Mr. S.P. Singh and Mr. R.S. Badhran, Advocates,
            for respondent No.2.

            Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate,
            for respondent No.3.
                        ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing the

order dated 17.4.2007, passed by the Haryana Seeds Development

Corporation – respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.3 has been

appointed as Accounts Officer in the respondent Corporation.

It is the case of the petitioners that the said appointment was

made in an illegal and arbitrary manner, contrary to the Service Rules, and

without inviting the applications from the eligible candidates. On July 29,
CWP No. 17406 of 2008 -2-

2009, during the course of arguments, it was stated that respondent No.2

appointed respondent No.3 as Accounts Officer against a direct quota post,

which was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. A plea was taken that

before making appointment, applications were invited from all the eligible

candidates. In view of that statement, respondent No.2 was directed to make

available the record pertaining to the said selection and appointment.

Today, during the course of hearing, counsel for respondent

No.2, on instructions from Shri M.M. Walia, Chief Manager, states that

before making appointment against the said post, no applications were

invited from the eligible candidates. It has been conceded that respondent

No.3, who was working in the respondent Corporation as Accountant, has

been appointed after examining the claim of two other employees. It has

also been conceded that neither any advertisement was issued nor the

applications were invited and interview was held. Counsel for respondent

No.2 states that he is unable to defend the action of respondent No.2

Corporation in appointing respondent No.3 as Accounts Officer against a

direct quota post.

Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that since one direct

quota post was reserved for Scheduled Caste category, therefore, respondent

No.2, by considering the eligible candidates available in the Corporation,

has appointed respondent No.3. This submission of learned counsel for

respondent No.3 cannot be accepted. For filling-up the direct quota post,

proper procedure has to be followed and applications have to be invited
CWP No. 17406 of 2008 -3-

from all the eligible candidates, which has not been done in this case and

respondent No.2 by showing favour to respondent No.3 has illegally and

arbitrarily appointed him on the post of Accounts Officer.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that appointment of

respondent No.3 as Accounts Officer is totally illegal, arbitrary and against

the Service Rules. Hence, this petition is allowed. The appointment of

respondent No.3 as Accounts Officer is hereby quashed.

August 19, 2009                           ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                JUDGE