Civil Writ Petition No.5864 of 2007 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: October 24, 2009
Rajinder Singh & another
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Satish Garg,Advocate,
for Mr.Inderpal Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.4,7,9 & 10.
Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.7.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of four Civil Writ Petition Nos.5864
of 2007 (Rajinder Singh & another Vs. State of Haryana & others),
6210 of 2007 (Surender Vs. State of Haryana & others), 8418 of
Civil Writ Petition No.5864 of 2007 :2 :
2007 (Gurcharan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & others) and 14992
of 2007 (Mukesh Mongia Vs. State of Haryana & others). The facts
are being taken from CWP No.5864 of 2007.
The petitioners have been shown working as Drawing
Instructors on regular basis having different qualifications. They also
claim to be having a brilliant academic record. An advertisement was
issued on 14.9.2006 inviting applications for 8 posts of Principal
Grade-II-Vice Principal/Senior Apprenticeship Supervisor (Technical)
for appointment in the Industrial Training and Vocational Education
Department, Haryana. Subsequently, corrigendum was issued on
17.12.2006 increasing the posts from 8 to 14. The petitioners and
others were short listed for interview. The result of selection after
interview was declared on 30.3.2007. The petitioners did not make
the grade and accordingly filed these writ petitions.
The reply initially was filed on 17.1.2008 by the
Commission disclosing that the candidates selected had obtained
higher marks than the petitioners and accordingly justified their
rejection as well as the selection of the private respondents. The
counsel appearing for the petitioners made reference to the
advertisement with special emphasis to the condition that preference
was to be given to the candidates possessing degree or diploma in
Mechanical or Electrical Engineering. The plea is that the petitioners
were possessing this qualification, which, none of the respondents
had and accordingly it was submitted that they would have a
preferential claim for appointment in comparison to the respondents,
who had been appointed.
During the course of hearing of the petitions, this court
Civil Writ Petition No.5864 of 2007 :3 :
directed the respondents to explain as to whether the qualifications of
the petitioners would come under the heading of higher qualification
and also to break up of marks given to various candidates.
Accordingly, an additional affidavit was filed on 29.7.2009 giving out
the break up of the various marks of the petitioners as well as of the
respondents, who were selected. It is on this basis submitted that
preference, which was to be shown, has become illusionary as there
will hardly be a situation where two candidates would obtain identical
marks so as to put into operation the preferential clause given in the
advertisement. It is accordingly submitted that this part of the rule or
the advertisement is meaningless ritual without having any effect.
The counsel would plead that to be effective, it has to work on basis
of showing preference to those who possess these qualifications.
The stand of the respondents ofcourse is that if everything is
otherwise equal, candidates possessing these diplomas or degrees would
have preferential right of appointment. Once the criteria for selection has
been made and assessment has been done on the basis of the said
criteria, preference clause obviously will come into play if other things are
equal. There can not be any other method to operate the preferential
clause. If the preferential qualification alone is to be considered for
appointment, then it would lead to excluding the others from consideration.
I am, thus, not inclined to accept the submissions made by the counsel for
the petitioners to say that they will have any preferential right for
appointment merely because they possess qualification which is to be
preferred.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
October 24, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE