{"id":54243,"date":"2009-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-22T21:35:19","modified_gmt":"2015-06-22T16:05:19","slug":"c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009<\/div>\n
C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                         ::1::\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                     Date of decision : February 10, 2009\n\n\n\n1.    C.W.P No.5720 of 1999\n\n      Surinder Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and<\/a> another.\n\n2.    C.W.P No.12077 of 2000\n\n      Naresh Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others<\/a>.\n\n3.    C.W.P No.14272 of 2000\n\n      Mohan Lal and others vs State of Haryana and others<\/a>,\n\n4.    C.W.P No.17135 of 2000\n\n      Barham Parkash and others vs State of Haryana and others<\/a>.\n\n5.    C.W.P No.1919 of 2002\n\n      Jawahar Lal and others vs The State of Haryana and others<\/a>.\n\n6.    C.W.P No.2427 of 2002\n\n      Shishpal and others vs State of Haryana and others<\/a>.\n\n7.    C.W.P No.3392 of 2002\n\n      Gulab Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others<\/a>.\n\n8.    C.W.P No.16364 of 2006\n\n      Avinash Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others<\/a>.\n\n                               ***\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI<\/p>\n
                               ***<\/p>\n
Present :   Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with
\n            Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate
\n            for the petitioners in CWP No.12077 of 2000,<\/p>\n
            Mr. Bahadur Singh, Advocate
\n            for the petitioners in CWP No.17135 of 2000<\/p>\n
            Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate
\n            for the petitioners in CWP No.1919 of 2002
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                         ::2::\n<\/p>\n
             Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate
\n             for the petitioners in CWP No.2427 of 2002<\/p>\n
             Mr. G.S.Hooda, Advocate
\n             for the petitioners in CWP No.3392 of 2002<\/p>\n
             Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate
\n             for the petitioners in CWP Nos.5720 of 1999 and 16364 of 2006<\/p>\n
             Mr. O.P.Sharda, Advocate
\n             for the petitioners in CWP No.14272 of 2000.<\/p>\n
             Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
\n             for the respondents.<\/p>\n
                                ***<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
\n     judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n
                                ***<\/p>\n
AJAY TEWARI, J<\/p>\n
             This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.5720 of 1999, 12077,<\/p>\n
14272, 17135 of 2000, 1919, 2427, 3392 of 2002 and 16364 of 2006 as<\/p>\n
common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of<\/p>\n
convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.12077 of 2000.<\/p>\n
             The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the<\/p>\n
issuance of a direction to respondent No.3 to declare the result of selection<\/p>\n
process which had been initiated, and for quashing the decision dated<\/p>\n
17.9.2001 (Annexure P-7) by which the Haryana Staff Selection<\/p>\n
Commission-respondent No.3 (for short “the Commission”)           decided to<\/p>\n
abandon the earlier selection process and to hold a written test for<\/p>\n
shortlisting the candidates in the proportion of 3:1.<\/p>\n
       On   22.1.1995, 73 posts of Science Masters were advertised but<\/p>\n
before interviews could be held additional 521 posts of Science Masters<\/p>\n
were advertised on 7.11.1996. Interviews were subsequently held but before the<\/p>\n
result could be declared, the same was stayed by this Court by way of interim
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                          ::3::\n<\/p>\n
order dated 27.5.1998 passed in CWP No.7653 of 1998. On 30.3.2000, the<\/p>\n
said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, as per the petitioners instead<\/p>\n
of declaring the result, the impugned decision was taken on 17.9.2001<\/p>\n
holding as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                   ”     With the adoption of criteria dated 27.1.1998 and<\/p>\n
                   20.1.1998 for the selection of Science Master\/Mistress,<\/p>\n
                   Math Master\/Mistress and Lecturer Hindi (Female)<\/p>\n
                   against Advt. No.1\/95, 4\/96 and 6\/97, a large number of<\/p>\n
                   eligible candidates have been deprived of the opportunity<\/p>\n
                   to compete against the said posts.         The shortlisting<\/p>\n
                   criteria by holding the written test is the best method and<\/p>\n
                   it provides opportunity to all the eligible candidates<\/p>\n
                   unlike the criteria based on academic records which give<\/p>\n
                   opportunity to the limited number of candidates.<\/p>\n
                   Moreover, the written test is a method of objective<\/p>\n
                   assessment of the candidates with no scope of<\/p>\n
                   subjectivity.      Further    for   the   same   posts   of<\/p>\n
                   Masters\/Lecturers (school cadre), the Commission does<\/p>\n
                   not consider appropriate to adopt two different types of<\/p>\n
                   criteria. The criteria of written test has been applied for<\/p>\n
                   the subsequent posts where selection has been finalised<\/p>\n
                   or at the stage of finalisation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         In view of the totality of the circumstances, the<\/p>\n
                   Commission unanimously resolved to hold the written<\/p>\n
                   test of all the eligible candidates applied for against Advt<\/p>\n
                   Nos. 1\/95, 4\/96 and 6\/97 for the posts of Science
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                            ::4::\n<\/p>\n
                   Master\/Mistress, Math Master\/Mistress and Lecturer<\/p>\n
                   Hindi (Female), for which the result have been<\/p>\n
                   complied\/yet to be complied.          The commission has<\/p>\n
                   further decided to hold the written test of these categories<\/p>\n
                   as per the following schedule :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Science Master\/Mistress       =26.11.2001 at Panchkula.<\/p>\n
                   Math Master\/Mistress          =9.12.2001 at Panchkula.<\/p>\n
                   Lecturer Hindi(Female)        =23.12.2001 at Panchkula.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has urged that had<\/p>\n
the interim order not been passed, the result would have been declared and<\/p>\n
just because the said process was delayed would not give enough reason to<\/p>\n
the respondents to divert from the earlier criteria dated 30.5.1997. It would<\/p>\n
be necessary to quote the earlier criteria as under :-<\/p>\n
                   “a)    Where the Service Rules of the concerned<\/p>\n
                   Department prescribe a pre-condition for candidates for a<\/p>\n
                   particular post to qualify\/pass in a written test, such a test<\/p>\n
                   will be held by the Board irrespective of the number of<\/p>\n
                   candidates;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   b)     That where a pre-condition of test mentioned in (a)<\/p>\n
                   above is not prescribed the selection shall be made by<\/p>\n
                   interview alone if the number of candidates does not<\/p>\n
                   exceed by about eight times the number of posts to be<\/p>\n
                   filled, and<\/p>\n
                   (c)    That in all the other cases, the applicants shall be<\/p>\n
                   short listed either by holding a written test or on the basis<\/p>\n
                   of merit based on the weighted score for academic,
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                          ::5::\n<\/p>\n
                   professional, other qualification etc.<\/p>\n
                         After the applicants have been placed in the<\/p>\n
                   descending order on the above basis, applicants equal to<\/p>\n
                   eight times of the number of posts to be filled shall be<\/p>\n
                   called for interview. The final selection of the candidate<\/p>\n
                   shall be made through the process of interview.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In reply, the respondents have urged that the criteria of having<\/p>\n
written test cannot be faulted; that this criteria was specifically upheld by a<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2001 passed in CWP<\/p>\n
No.15885 of 2000, Jawahar Lal Goyal and others vs State of Haryana and<\/p>\n
others<\/a>, by holding as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                   ”     However, in the present case, there is no change in<\/p>\n
                   the criteria, so far as recruitment rules are concerned.<\/p>\n
                   Only by virtue of the subsequent order it had been<\/p>\n
                   prescribed as to how the short listing of the candidates<\/p>\n
                   would be done.       Therefore, this argument so much<\/p>\n
                   thought, indeed, is without any merit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         In fact, we may refer with advantage the decision<\/p>\n
                   of this Court in the case of Pushap Lata and another vs<\/p>\n
                   State of Haryana and others, Civil Writ Petition No.3692<\/p>\n
                   of 1998 decided on 25.8.98. This Court held that the<\/p>\n
                   stage for deciding whether or not all eligible candidates<\/p>\n
                   should be called for interview is reached only when the<\/p>\n
                   applications are scrutinised.     The Board\/Commission<\/p>\n
                   may invite all of them or short list them. A screening test,<\/p>\n
                   therefore, can be held keeping in view the large number
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                        ::6::\n<\/p>\n
               of applications. The precise findings with which we find<\/p>\n
               ourselves in respectful agreement reads as under :-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     “…… The stage for deciding whether or not all<\/p>\n
                     eligible applicants should be called for final<\/p>\n
                     selection is reached only when the applications are<\/p>\n
                     scrutinised. Then only the Board\/Commission can<\/p>\n
                     know the total number of candidates who fulfill the<\/p>\n
                     prescribed qualifications. If their number is within<\/p>\n
                     the reasonable limit, the Board\/Commission may<\/p>\n
                     invite all of them for final selection. If the number<\/p>\n
                     of eligible candidates is unusually large and the<\/p>\n
                     Board\/Commission         finds     it       reasonably<\/p>\n
                     impracticable    to    interview   all      of   them.<\/p>\n
                     Appropriate mechanism can be devised to reduce<\/p>\n
                     the number of candidate to be called for final<\/p>\n
                     selection. This can be done either by holding a<\/p>\n
                     written\/screening test or by making an assessment<\/p>\n
                     on the basis of academic and other qualification or<\/p>\n
                     by devising other suitable mode. This is precisely<\/p>\n
                     what has been done by the Board\/Commission in<\/p>\n
                     the instant case.     Therefore, we are unable to<\/p>\n
                     accept Sh. Laler’s submission that the impugned<\/p>\n
                     criteria has been applied with retrospective effect<\/p>\n
                     depriving the petitioners of their vested right to be<\/p>\n
                     considered for selection.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The Division Bench also relied upon a notification dated
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                          ::7::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
28.7.1998 whereby the Governor of Haryana had made an amendment in the<\/p>\n
Haryana Government, General Administration Department, General<\/p>\n
Services, Notification No.523-3GS-70\/2068, dated 28.1.70 which permitted<\/p>\n
the Commission to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for<\/p>\n
selection. It reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                   “The 28th July, 1998.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   No.G.S.R 84\/Const\/Art.309\/98- In exercise of powers<\/p>\n
                   conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the<\/p>\n
                   Governor of Haryana hereby makes the following<\/p>\n
                   amendments in the Haryana Government, General<\/p>\n
                   Administration      Department,      General         Services,<\/p>\n
                   Notification No.523-3GS-70\/2068, dated the 28th January<\/p>\n
                   1970, namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                  AMENDMENT<\/p>\n
                   In the Haryana Government, General Administration<\/p>\n
                   Department, General Services, Notification No.523-3GS-<\/p>\n
                   70\/2068, dated the 28th January, 1970 in paragraph 6 for<\/p>\n
                   sub paragraph (d), the following sub-paragraph shall be<\/p>\n
                   substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted<\/p>\n
                   with effect from the twenty eighth day of January 1970,<\/p>\n
                   namely :-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (d)    Method of recruitment and the principles to be<\/p>\n
                   followed in making appointments to the Group C and<\/p>\n
                   Group D posts under the State Government.                 The<\/p>\n
                   Commission shall devise the mode of selection and fix<\/p>\n
                   the criteria for selection of posts for which requisition is
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                        ::8::\n<\/p>\n
                  sent to it by a department or a office, as it may deem<\/p>\n
                  appropriate and the criteria for the selection of posts<\/p>\n
                  fixed earlier by the Board\/Commission shall be deemed<\/p>\n
                  to have been fixed under this sub-paragraph.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a judgment<\/p>\n
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Harcharan<\/p>\n
Singh and others<\/a>, CA No.3521 of 2006, a judgment of the Allahabad High<\/p>\n
Court in State of U.P vs Rakesh Kumar (Allahabad) (DB),<\/a> 2004(1) SCT 34<\/p>\n
and a judgment of this Court in CWP No.16376 of 1999, Davender Kumar<\/p>\n
and others vs State and others, decided on 31.1.2007.<\/p>\n
            In the case of State of Punjab and others vs Harcharan Singh<\/p>\n
and others<\/a>‘ (supra), the dispute was with regard to posts of Lascars wherein<\/p>\n
selection process was completed but appointment letters could not be issued<\/p>\n
because of promulgation of the Model Code of Conduct.                 In those<\/p>\n
circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows :-<\/p>\n
                  “For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned<\/p>\n
                  order of the Division Bench of the High Court. We are,<\/p>\n
                  however, of the opinion that since the respondents have<\/p>\n
                  been selected by a duly constituted Subordinate Services<\/p>\n
                  Selection Board and they could not be appointed because<\/p>\n
                  of the ban imposed by the Government, in the fitness of<\/p>\n
                  things and in the interest of justice and fair play if the<\/p>\n
                  respondents could be accommodated to the posts of<\/p>\n
                  Lascars for which they have been duly selected as and<\/p>\n
                  when the ban of the Government is relaxed or when the<\/p>\n
                  posts are revived. We make it clear that in such event the
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                          ::9::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    case of the respondents shall be considered first before<\/p>\n
                    calling for the fresh candidates by way of advertisement<\/p>\n
                    or otherwise.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
               Even the case of State of U.P vs Rakesh Kumar<\/a> (supra) deals<\/p>\n
with a situation where there was no controversy with respect to the<\/p>\n
recruitment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               In the case of Davender Kumar and others (supra), the<\/p>\n
controversy was with regard to filling up posts of Gram Sachivs, in a<\/p>\n
situation where selections could not fructify because the Government had<\/p>\n
abolished octroi and consequently absorbed all those surplus employees as<\/p>\n
Gram Sachivs. Thereafter fresh posts of Gram Sachivs were sought to be<\/p>\n
filled up. A Division Bench of this Court held as follows :-<\/p>\n
                    ” It may be that in the year 1999, persons selected by the<\/p>\n
                    Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board as Gram<\/p>\n
                    Sachivs could not be appointed as Haryana State had<\/p>\n
                    abolished Octroi w.e.f 1.11.1999 and had proposed to<\/p>\n
                    absorb the surplus staff working for the Octroi in various<\/p>\n
                    Municipal Committees, still it is a fact that various writ<\/p>\n
                    petitions had been filed in the years 1999 and 2000,<\/p>\n
                    which remained pending till this date and by this time,<\/p>\n
                    more than 600 posts of Gram Sachivs are available and<\/p>\n
                    are to be filled by way of new selection by the Haryana<\/p>\n
                    Subordinate Services Selection Board. It cannot at all be<\/p>\n
                    said that Gram Sachivs selected by way of duly<\/p>\n
                    conducted process in the year 1999, were at fault, in any<\/p>\n
                    way. A large number of them had filed writ petitions in
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                            ::10::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     this Court, which have remained pending and now time<\/p>\n
                     has come when the respondent-State have again proposed<\/p>\n
                     to fill up the posts now available, which are more in<\/p>\n
                     number than the persons so selected in the year 1999.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                           No defect has been pointed out as far as selection<\/p>\n
                     process for the posts of Gram Sachivs in the year 1999,<\/p>\n
                     is concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would<\/p>\n
                     be appropriate that the candidates selected for the posts<\/p>\n
                     of Gram Sachivs in the year 1999 be first absorbed now<\/p>\n
                     against available vacancies and then the remaining<\/p>\n
                     available posts be filled by further selection process.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             It would be noticed that in the above judgments the<\/p>\n
distinguishing feature is that the selection process had been concluded and<\/p>\n
results declared, whereas in the present cases this is not so.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied upon a<\/p>\n
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemani Malhotra vs High Court<\/p>\n
of Delhi,<\/a> (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 203, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                     “14. It is an admitted position that at the beginning of<\/p>\n
                     the selection process, no minimum cut-off marks for viva<\/p>\n
                     voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service<\/p>\n
                     Examination, 2006.       The question, therefore, which<\/p>\n
                     arises for consideration of the Court is whether<\/p>\n
                     introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for<\/p>\n
                     interview, after the entire selection process was
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                      ::11::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               completed would amount to changing the rules of the<\/p>\n
               game after the game was played. This Court notices that<\/p>\n
               in K.Manjusree v. State of A.P, the<\/a> question posed for<\/p>\n
               consideration of this Court in the instant petitions was<\/p>\n
               considered and answered in the following terms :-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     ” 33. The Resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely<\/p>\n
                     adopted the procedure prescribed earlier.          The<\/p>\n
                     previous procedure was not to have any minimum<\/p>\n
                     marks for interview.       Therefore, extending the<\/p>\n
                     minimum      marks      prescribed     for      written<\/p>\n
                     examination, to interviews, in the selection process<\/p>\n
                     is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription<\/p>\n
                     of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     We have no doubt that the authority making rules<\/p>\n
                     regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the<\/p>\n
                     minimum marks both for written examination and<\/p>\n
                     interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for<\/p>\n
                     written examination but not for interview, or may<\/p>\n
                     not prescribe any minimum marks for either<\/p>\n
                     written examination or interview. Where the rules<\/p>\n
                     do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection<\/p>\n
                     Committee may also prescribe the minimum<\/p>\n
                     marks, as stated above.       But if the Selection<\/p>\n
                     Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for<\/p>\n
                     interview,   it   should     do   so    before     the<\/p>\n
                     commencement of selection process.              If the
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                         ::12::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks<\/p>\n
                         only for the written examination, before the<\/p>\n
                         commencement of selection process, it cannot<\/p>\n
                         either during the selection process or after the<\/p>\n
                         selection process, add an additional requirement<\/p>\n
                         that the candidates should also secure minimum<\/p>\n
                         marks in the interview. What we have found to be<\/p>\n
                         illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of<\/p>\n
                         the selection process, when the entire selection<\/p>\n
                         proceeded on the basis that there will be no<\/p>\n
                         minimum marks for the interview.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            In my opinion, these petitions must fail. It is trite that even a<\/p>\n
selected candidate does not earn any unequivocal right of appointment.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Here the only assertion of the petitioners is that they have been interviewed.<\/p>\n
Secondly, there is no question of changing the rules, as pointed out in the<\/p>\n
case of Hemani Malhotra (supra) but the following observations of the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Goyal and others’<\/p>\n
case (supra) would be apposite :-\n<\/p>\n
                   ”     It was further urged that the criteria could not be<\/p>\n
                   changed after the publication of the advertisement and<\/p>\n
                   the application had been received. Even on that count,<\/p>\n
                   we find that there is no merit in the said argument. The<\/p>\n
                   petitioners had no vested right except the right to be<\/p>\n
                   considered.      No right of the petitioners is affected<\/p>\n
                   because if eligible, they would be competing with<\/p>\n
                   similarly situated persons. The criteria, if changed, in
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                              ::13::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      this light must be held not affecting any right of the<\/p>\n
                      petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            There are other factors which prompt us to<\/p>\n
                      conclude in the same direction. There are no mala fide<\/p>\n
                      that have been shown for issuing such a criteria i.e by<\/p>\n
                      holding a written test. No prejudice is caused to the<\/p>\n
                      petitioners. They have a right to be considered which has<\/p>\n
                      not been denied. The criteria has been applied uniformly<\/p>\n
                      to all the candidates.    Consequently, no fundamental<\/p>\n
                      right of the petitioners is being affected nor it can be<\/p>\n
                      termed that any unreasonable condition had been<\/p>\n
                      imposed to permit this Court to interfere.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             Further, a perusal of the earlier criteria (Annexure P-6) would<\/p>\n
reveal that the said criteria clearly laid down that where a pre-condition of<\/p>\n
test is not prescribed the selection shall be made by interview alone if the<\/p>\n
number of candidates does not exceed about eight times the number of<\/p>\n
posts to be filled.       It is no body’s case that this was the position in the<\/p>\n
present case. Much has also been sought to be made from the fact that on<\/p>\n
an earlier occasion in this case the following order was passed :-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      ”     Learned Advocate General Haryana has stated that<\/p>\n
                      the Government will take decision on finalisation of<\/p>\n
                      selection within two months.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            Admitted to be listed for hearing on 8.10.2001.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             It is argued that the above statement clearly indicated that the<\/p>\n
result was to be declared. I am afraid the plain meaning of this statement<\/p>\n
does not indicate any thing of the sort. The reasons cited in the impugned
\n C.W.P No.12077 of 2000                                         ::14::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
decision (supra) clearly show that a reasoned decision was taken to hold<\/p>\n
written test and the reasons can by no means be termed as arbitrary.<\/p>\n
             In my opinion, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of<\/p>\n
Jawahar Lal Goyal and others (supra), completely covers the facts of the<\/p>\n
present cases. The primary allegations made in the present writ petitions<\/p>\n
have been considered and repelled in the above judgment, which is binding<\/p>\n
on this Court. Consequently, these writ petitions are dismissed, however,<\/p>\n
with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         ( AJAY TEWARI           )\nFebruary     10, 2009.                        JUDGE\n`kk'\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009 C.W.P No.12077 of 2000 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : February 10, 2009 1. C.W.P No.5720 of 1999 Surinder Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and another. 2. C.W.P […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-22T16:05:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T16:05:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2970,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009\",\"name\":\"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T16:05:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-22T16:05:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T16:05:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009"},"wordCount":2970,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009","name":"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T16:05:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-w-p-no-5720-of-1999-vs-state-of-haryana-and-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.W.P No.5720 Of 1999 vs State Of Haryana And on 10 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54243"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54243\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}