CWP No.8919-CAT of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CASE NO.: CWP No.8919-CAT of 2003
DATE OF DECISION: April 29, 2009
ANISH SHARMA ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ETC. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.
PRESENT: MR. I.S. SIDHU, ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER.
MR. GURINDERJIT SINGH, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3.
MR. T.P.S. CHAWLA, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.4.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated
23.5.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the
Tribunal’) vide which the Original Application filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
Briefly the facts of the case are that in pursuance to
advertisement (Annexure A-3), issued by the Director Principal,
Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh the petitioner Anish
Sharma as well as respondent No.4 Mamta Sharma alongwith others applied
for the post of Telephone Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/-. The
eligible candidates were interviewed by a Selection Committee and on their
recommendation respondent No.4 Mamta Sharma was appointed as
CWP No.8919-CAT of 2003 -2-
Telephone Operator vide order dated 6.8.2002. She joined her duties
thereafter and has been working since then. The petitioner filed petition
before the Tribunal for quashing the appointment of Mamta Sharma on the
ground that one of the Members of the Selection Committee, namely,
Sh.Arun Sharma, respondent No.3, Incharge Communication, Government
Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh was the brother-in-law of
respondent No.4 and his presence as a Member of the Selection Committee
at the time of interview shows that there was likelihood of bias. Reliance in
this regard has been placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454.
Separate replies on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and
respondent No.4 were filed before the Tribunal. In the reply filed by
Sh.Arun Sharma, respondent No.3, it was averred that although he was one
of the Members of the Selection Committee, but he did not take part in the
interview process at the time when respondent No.4 appeared for interview
and hence the selection process cannot be faulted. It has also been averred
that the selection was absolutely fair and impartial.
Apart from the above, it has also been contended on behalf of
the respondent that the interview was conducted by the Selection Committee
which was chaired by the Director/Principal, Government Medical College
& Hospital, Chandigarh and the Joint Director as well as two senior Doctors
of the same College/Hospital who were part of the Selection Committee. It
is highly unlikely and improbable that respondent No.3 who is merely
Incharge Communication in the Government Medical College & Hospital,,
Sector 32, Chandigarh would have such a huge impact on the selection
process so as to hoodwink or win-over all other four Members who were
CWP No.8919-CAT of 2003 -3-
much superior to him in rank and status. It was further averred that
respondent No.4 has been selected after due consideration of her merit by
the Selection Committee which did not include Sh.Arun Sharma, respondent
No.3.
It was also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that
respondent No.4 did not fulfill the requisite experience of having worked on
at least 20 x 220 lines in a reputed Government organization for one year
and further that the experience certificate issued by M/s Sanchi Security
Private Ltd., respondent No.5 in favour of respondent No.4 is fake.
In reply to this averment it has been averred in the written
statement that experience certificate issued to respondent No.4 and the
petitioner has been issued by the same Company, i.e. respondent No.5
which is an agency through which both the petitioner and the answering
respondent were appointed on contractual basis. It was also submitted that
respondent No.4 is possessing certificate of Telephone Operator-cum-
Receptionist (Vocational Course) issued by the Hindustan Marine
Electronic Institute based in Ludhiana. The certificate is duly recognized by
the State of Punjab for the purpose of appointing persons to the posts of
Telephone Operator etc. It is thus argued that the Tribunal has rightly come
to the conclusion that respondent no.4 possessed the requisite qualification.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. A
perusal of the aforementioned fact shows that although Sh. Arun Sharma,
respondent No.3 was brother-in-law of respondent No.4, but he had excused
himself when respondent No.4 was called for interview. In the present case,
there is no positive averment that respondent No.3 Sh. Arun Sharma had in
any manner espoused the case of respondent No.4 and helped her in getting
CWP No.8919-CAT of 2003 -4-
selected. Although respondent No.3 was one of the Members of the
Selection Committee, but was merely Incharge Communication in the
Government Medical College & Hospital. All the 4 other Members of the
Committee were highly superior in rank and status than respondent No.3.
There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent No.3 had influence on
the senior Members of the Selection Committee to such an extent that he
could have got respondent No.4 selected. Thus, we are of the considered
opinion that respondent No.4 was not appointed to the post of Telephone
Operator because of any favourtism on the part of respondent No.3, but on
her own merit.
Regarding the second point raised by the counsel for the
petitioner that respondent No.4 did not have the requisite experience of
having worked on at least 20 x 200 lines in a reputed firm or in a
Government Organization for one year, we find no merit in the same also.
A perusal of the experience certificate (Annexure A-4) issued in favour of
respondent No.4 shows that Smt. Mamta Sharma has worked as EPABX
Operator (24 x 240 lines) on Model P-30 (BPL) in Sanchi Security Private
Ltd. from 16.12.1999 till the date of certificate, i.e. 8.5.2002 on contractual
basis. The certificate itself makes it clear that respondent No.4 did have the
requisite experience. The capacity of the aforementioned Exchange has
been stated to be 64 x 750 lines and thus, respondent No.4 did have the
experience as mentioned in the advertisement.
Apart from the above, in Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of
Jammu & Kashmir, JT 1995(2) SC 291, it has been held that if a candidate
takes a calculated chance and appears in an interview then, only because the
result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and
CWP No.8919-CAT of 2003 -5-
contend that process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee
was not properly constituted. In the present case, the petitioner having
taken part in the selection process for the post of Telephone Operator and
having failed to make the grade, cannot question the legality of the selection
process which in our considered opinion is just and fair. In view of the
above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
April 29, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR)
Gulati JUDGE