The Managing Committee Babu Annat ... vs Barjender Singh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1511 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                      RSA No.2211 of 2019 (O&M)
                    Date of decision: 11th March, 2022

The Managing Committee Babu Anant Ram Janta College
Vill. Kaul, Tehsil Dhand, District Kaithal
                                                             ... Appellant
                                     Versus
Barjender Singh & others
                                                           ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH

Present:    Ms. Aashima Narula, Advocate for
            Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the appellant.
            Mr. R. Kartikeya and Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocates
            for respondent No.1.
            Service of respondents No.2 to 5 - dispensed with.

FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.

The very short point that erupts in this appeal is the very

entitlement of the then plaintiff Barjender Singh (now respondent) to the

post of Assistant Professor, Health and Physical Education in the plaintiff

college. The background of the lis emancipates when the appellant

college invited applications for the post of Assistant Professor in the

subject of physical education on regular basis vide advertisement Ex.P1

dated 08.04.2013. Upon constitution of the selection committee, the

plaintiff was interviewed and was finally selected to the said post and

recommended at serial number 1 of the list of successful candidates. It is

by another quirk of fate, CWP No.22918 of 2013 titled 'Kuldeep Singh

vs. State of Haryana and others' was filed by one of the candidates before

1 of 7

this Court laying challenge to the said selection, as a consequence of

which the defendant did not issue any appointment letter to the plaintiff

although vide order dated 27.09.2016 this Court had dismissed the said

writ petition. The plaintiff has submitted his original certificates vide

letter dated 23.11.2016 for verification but nothing materialized leading

to the filing the present suit.

The lone defence of the defendants No.1 and 2 (as others did

not contest) was of usual denial trying to hide under the plea that the Vice

Chancellor and Director did not approve of this selection and sought

dismissal of the suit. Defendants No.4 and 5 besides this, had taken the

usual plea that the plaintiff did not fulfill requisite qualifications as to the

marks prescribed to be obtained in Senior Secondary Examination and

thus, suppressed the material facts.

Trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether plaintiff is selected for the post of Assistant

Professor of Physical Education in the college of

defendant No.5 being eligible and recommended at

Serial No.1 in preference to other candidates by the

Selection Committee ? OPP

2. Whether the defendant is liable to issue appointment

letter to the plaintiff for the said post? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material

facts from the Court ? OPD

2 of 7

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as

plaintiff has failed to fulfill necessary requirements for

the said post? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi

to file the present suit? OPD

6. Relief.

The plaintiff examined PW1 Surender Kumar and himself

testified as PW2 through affidavit Ex.PW2/A and proved documents

Ex.P1 to Ex.P35.

Defendants on the other hand, examined DW1 Surender

Kumar through affidavit Ex.DW1/A and proved document Ex.DA. In

rebuttal, plaintiff examined Surinder Kumar as PW3 and closed the

evidence. It is subsequent thereto, vide judgment and decree dated

07.04.2018 the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kaithal partly

decreed the suit recommending the plaintiff being at serial number 1 for

the said post. The same was challenged by the unsuccessful defendants in

appeal and the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide

impugned judgment and decree dated 14.01.2019 dismissed the appeal

with costs of Rs.25,000/- and that is how the parties are before this Court.

In view of the recent pronouncement in 'Kirodi (since

deceased) through his LR vs. Ram Parkash & others' Civil appeal

No.4988 of 2019; SLP(C) No.11527 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held under Section 41 of the Punjab

3 of 7

Courts Act, 1918 which has its application to the States of Punjab and

Haryana, that there is no necessity of framing substantial question of law

for disposal of an appeal.

Appreciating the submissions, it is fairly conceded at the bar

that Ex.P35, which is as an outcome of modifications in service rules

2010 as approved by the State Government, details the minimum

requirements enabling a candidate to apply for such post under which it

was laid as under:-

"NET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment as lecturer in College.

Provided, however that the candidates possessing Ph.D. degree shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET for recruitment and appointment as Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Colleges.

Provided, further that Ph.D. degrees awarded by State/Central Universities and only those private universities which have been accredited as "A" grade universities by the National Assessment and Accreditation council (NAAC) shall be considered for relaxation in lieu of NET.

Provided, that the candidate should possess the Ph.D. degree at the time of submission of the application.

NET shall not be required for such Master's programmes in disciplines for which there is no NET."

Thus, as has been submitted on behalf of the respondent by

Mr. R. Kartikeya and Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Advocates, the fact that the

plaintiff at the relevant time possessed Ph.D. degree has not been

4 of 7

displaced and therefore, under these Rules of 2010 the plaintiff fully

qualifies for the said post and having been selected as such at serial

number 1, certainly is entitled to get job with the defendant college.

Though on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Aashima Narula,

Advocate appearing for Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate has laid much

stress on the fact that as per Ex.P2, bio-data of the candidates applying

for such posts, under serial number 2 shows that the plaintiff had secured

72.38 percent marks in the Senior Secondary/ Intermediate Examination

and in fact as per his certificate Ex.P8 has secured only 46 percent marks.

To the specific query of this Court how under the advertisement,

minimum marks for such a Job were prescribed essential for the

candidate, learned counsel for the appellant was squarely at loss of

words. The only qualifications which have been prescribed for this post

are well enumerated in the advertisement Ex.P1 and which learned

counsel for the appellant could not displace.

Though much arguments have come about from the appellant

side over allowing of application for additional evidence by the Court

below however, the said application was purely for placing on record

copy of application-form of the plaintiff and documents regarding revised

criteria, copy of experience certificate and certificate of SLET; and it has

been rightly concluded by the Court below that the same was irrelevant

for the purpose of decision of the matter and which finding does not have

much to affect the merits of the instant case.

5 of 7

The plea of the appellant that the plaintiff's case was based

on falsehood and therefore disentitles him to any relief, could not be

convincingly established on the record in the submissions of learned

counsel for the appellant. The trial Court holding that the Haryana

Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rules, 2002 provides recruitment

to this service by direct selection through Selection Committee which is

further forwarded to the respective Vice Chancellor and Director for

approval and it clearly establishes and remains unrebutted that he was

placed at serial No.1 of this list. How there has been misguiding of the

facts by the plaintiff and rather the claim that the biodata furnished by the

plaintiff Ex.P2 at serial No.2 wrongly depicts the marks, is highly

imaginary and it is nothing but a computerized list of biodata of all the

aspirants prepared by the college and does not show that it is furnished by

the plaintiff or is in his handwriting and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be

held responsible for such entries and there is no concealment of any

material fact by the plaintiff at the time of submission of his application

form, besides the fact that 10+2 was not an essential qualification

prescribed for being considered for such post and has thus not much

relevance. The trial Court has considered at length and has correctly

given its findings on the various issues which needs to be upheld and so

is in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned first appellate

Court which has rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant college.

6 of 7

This Court does not feel inclined to show any indulgence in the present

appeal which stands dismissed accordingly.

                                            (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
                                                  JUDGE
March 11, 2022
rps
             Whether speaking/reasoned                    Yes/No
              Whether reportable                          Yes/No




                               7 of 7