JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. Om Parkash and three others, petitioners herein charge the official respondents 1 and 2 in giving appointments to respondents 3 to 18 of a public office in a most cloistered manner. The charge made by the petitioners to the effect aforesaid stems from facts that need to be given, even though in brevity.
2. Raj Kumar respondent No. 3 was appointed on 89 days basis on 20.7.1995. The date of appointment of respondent Raj Kumar and other respondents 3 to 18 is as follows :
—————————————————————————
Sr. No. Name Date of Appointment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Raj Kumar 20.7.1995
2. Sanjay Kumar 20.7.1996
3. Hemant Kumar 18.7.1995
4. Birbal 28.6.1995
5. Rajinder Singh 14.7.1995
6. Vijay Singh 20.7.1995
7. Naresh Kumar 13.5.1995
8. Gulshan Kumar 7.6.1995
9. Narinder Singh 17.7.1995
10. Randhir Singh 19.10.1995
11. Dalai Singh 18.7.1995
12. Pawing Kumar 5.10.1995
13. Sharwan Kumar 29.4.1995
14. Krishan Kumar 29.4.1995
15. Surinder Singh 13.9.1995
16. Jaivir Singh 10.10.1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Prior to the appointments of respondents 3 to 18 on the dates as referred to above, an amendment came to be made in the Haryana State Cooperative Banks Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975, copy whereof has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. By virtue of the amendment brought about vide Annexure P-1, it is the positive case of the petitioners that the post of Secretary Grade ‘B’ shall be filled up by appointment amongst the salesmen and clerks working in P.A.C.S. (Mini Banks). Quota of promotion amongst the salesmen and clerks has been fixed at 50% and it has also been mentioned in the said amendment that no direct recruitment shall be made unless 50% quota for promotion to the post of Secretaries Grade ‘B’ is filled up from amongst the salesmen and clerks working ill the P.A.C.S. (Mini Banks). By virtue of the amendment brought in the rules, it is further the case of the petitioners that the salesmen and clerks working in the different societies i.e. Mini Banks have become entitled to appointment as Secretary Grade ‘B’. By completely ignoring he aforesaid amendment, the Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hisar, respondent No. 2 herein has appointed many persons as Secretaries. Initially respondents 3 to 18 were appointed on 89 days but later on, however, respondent No. 2 regularised their services vide resolution dated 6.11.1995 and order dated 21.11.1995, Annexure P-2. In the order Annexure P-2 it has been mentioned that the Administrative Committee of Hisar Distt. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Hisar vide resolution No. 5 dated 6.11.1995 has decided that the services of those employees who have completed atleast a tenure of 89 days till the date of meeting i.e. 6.11.1995 be regularised. Consequently, the services of respondents 3 to 18 and others working on adhoc basis and who have completed tenure of 89 days were regularised with effect from 6.11.1995 i.e.date of meeting of the Administrative Committee. It is further the case of the petitioners that respondents No. 3 to 18 have been appointed by respondent No. 2 in sheer violation of Haryana State Central Cooperative Bank Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975 and the provisions of Section 4 of Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. It is further the case of the petitioners that before making the appointments of private respondents, no advertisement was issued nor persons similarly situated were ever considered. Appointments of respondents 3 to 18 have been made with malafide intention to oblige some Directors of respondent No. 2, political leaders and senior employees. To illustrate favouritism in giving appointments to respondent 3 to 18, it has further been pleaded that respondent No. 3 Raj Kumar is the son of Senior Accountant of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 is nephew of Establishment Officer of respondent No. 2 i.e. Ram Dhan Ahuja. Hemant Kumar respondent No. 5 is a Bishnoi by caste and has close relation with Shri Bhajan Lal, the then Chief Minister. Respondent No. 6 is relative of Laxmi Chand Director. Similarly, all other private respondents have close relations either with the Director of the Bank or some Bank or some political leader. Rajinder Singh respondent is stated to be the real nephew of the Director of respondent No. 2.
4. On the basis of averments, referred to above, it is further the case of petitioners that respondent No. 2 was not competent to appoint respondents 3 to 18 till such time quota of salesmen/clerks working in the Mini Banks, i.e., members of the petitioner Union was filled up and further the case of the petitioners is that action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in as much as all those, who were equally situated or even better suited for the job than respondents 3 to 18 were completely ignored for consideration to the posts under contention. It is further pleaded that a novel method was adopted in this case to give appointments firstly on 89 days basis without any process of selection and then to regularise the services of respondents 3 to 18, thus, to permit them to have backdoor entry to the posts on which they could never be selected on merits.
5. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents have entered defence and contested the cause of the petitioners. Two separate written statements, one on behalf of respondent No. 2 and the other on behalf of respondents 3 to 18 have been filed. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the petitioners have filed the present petition for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint salesmen/clerks working in PACS (Mini Banks) to the post of Secretary Grade B in view of amendment in rules. It is pleaded that in this connection policy Annexure P-1 was framed on 29.4.1995 and two cadres of Secretaries were made vide memo dated 5.5.1995. This Court in CWP No. 8225 of 1995 on 31.5.1995 stayed the operation of this policy. The stay against this policy was operative upto 18.10.1995 and, therefore, at the time of appointment, policy in question could not be considered. However, as per the policy, appointments to the post of Secretary Grade B were to be made out of joint seniority list of Salesmen/Clerks prepared by the Bank. In the present case, no appointment of Secretary Grade B has been made by the respondents. All the appointments have been made against the posts of Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-. Further, till date no joint seniority list of salesmen/clerks has been prepared by the Bank. On 27.11.1995 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, at Haryana Bhawan, Delhi. Relevant part of agenda regarding appointment of Secretaries ‘A’ and ‘B’ is reproduced as under :-
“Regarding the appointment of ‘A’ and ‘B’ grade Secretaries :
In this regard it has been decided that all the Managing Directors of Central Cooperative Banks will send the following information of the Salesmen/Clerks of the Mini Banks after investigation to the Assistant Registrar by 15.12.1995 :-
(a) copy of the order of appointment of employee.
(b) copy of the resolution of the society of adopting of service rules.
(c) certificate about the conduct of the employee;
(d) copy of the certificates of the education qualification of the employees.
All officers are directed to do this by 15.12.1995. For review of all these points meeting can be fixed on any day after 15th December, 1995.”
As per the decision aforesaid, requisite information of the salesmen/clerks of the Mini Bank concerning to the respondents after investigation was sent to the Assistant Registrar and for review of all these points, meeting is yet to be fixed. Therefore, by this appointment, no right of the petitioners has been affected. However, as and when vacancies in the category of grade ‘B’ would arise, the same would be offered to the salesmen/clerks of the Mini Bank in accordance with their eligibility. Specific averments made in the petition with regard to appointment of respondents’ to 18 in the way and manner. Referred to above, have not been denied, even though various paras of writ petition have been styled to be wrong and denied in general terms. Preliminary objections, as reflected above, have been reiterated in various paras of the written statement. Respondents 3 to 18 have done no better than respondent No. 2 in filing written statement.
6. It is quite clear from the averments made in the written statements as also contentions raised before this Court that cause of the petitioners is sought to be opposed on the only ground that insofar as petitioners are concerned, they can not, for the time being, claim their appointment on the posts under contention. The charge of petitioners with regard to favouring respondents 3 to 18 in the way and manner as indicated in the writ petition, could neither be refuted in the pleadings made by the respondents nor during the course of arguments.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, going through the records of the case, we are of the clear view that respondents 3 to 18 have been favoured in the matter of appointment to the posts on which they have been appointed. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that a writ seeking removal of a person from public appointment could be filed by any one despite the fact that he had interest in the post under contention or not. We are of the considered view that respondents 3 to 18 have been appointed by way of sheer favouritism. Without making any advertisement, they were initially appointed for a period of 89 days and thereafter regularised in service. By adopting this method, surely, all those who are eligible for the post of Secretary Grade ‘B’ were denied an equal opportunity in the matter of appointment. The way and manner in which respondents 3 to 18 came to be appointed, leaves an undeniable impression upon us that they have been appointed on account of sheer favouritism. No process of selection was ever gone into and as mentioned above, no advertisement or public notice of the posts being vacant and appointments being made on the said posts was ever made/issued. The novel method in initially appointing respondents 3 to 18 on 89 days basis and then regularising them in service was adopted as, in all probability, they could not compete with eligible candidates. Be that as it may, no appointment to the public office could be made in a secretive manner, as has been done in the present case. This certainly violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is allowed. We set aside the appointment of respondents 3 to 13 on the posts of Secretary and further direct the respondents to issue proper advertisement inviting applications for the post of Secretary and by process of selection, appoint those who are found eligible for the said posts. No orders as to costs.
9. Petition allowed.