Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krisan Kumar & Ors vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd ... on 19 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. LPA-1543-2016
Krishan Kumar and others
. . . . Appellants
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
2. LPA-1564-2016
Harbans Lal and others
. . . . Appellants
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
3. LPA-1695-2016
Chand Ram and others
. . . . Appellants
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
4. LPA-2479-2016
Satbir Singh and others
. . . . Appellants
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
5. LPA-2505-2016
Krishan Lal and others
. . . . Appellants
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
6. LPA-2506-2016
Suresh Singh and others
. . . . Appellants
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 02:09:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
Page 2 of 12
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
7. LPA-207-2017
Nar Singh
. . . . Appellant
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
8. LPA-210-2017
Rakesh Kumar
. . . . Appellant
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
9. LPA-586-2017
Sat Pal and another
. . . . Appellants
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
10. LPA-587-2017
Laxman
. . . . Appellant
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
11. LPA-348-2017
Rajesh
. . . . Appellant
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others
. . . . Respondents
****
12. LPA-449-2017
Bhagwam
. . . . Appellant
Versus
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd.
. . . . Respondent
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 22-04-2023 02:09:36 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
Page 3 of 12
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
****
Reserved on: 22.03.2023
Date of Decision: 19.04.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: - Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sunil Hooda, Advocate for the appellants
(in LPAs-1543, 1564, 1695-2016).
Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate
for the appellants (in LPAs-2479, 2505, 2506-2016).
Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate
for the appellants (in LPAs-207, 210, 348-2017).
Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocate for
Mr. Sukhdev Singh Gopera, Advocate
for the appellants (in LPAs-586, 587-2017).
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate
for the appellant (in LPA-449-2017).
Mr. B.R. Mahajan,Senior Advocate with
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate and
Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for HVPNL and UHBVNL.
Mr. Hoshiar Singh Jaswal, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 5 and 11 (in LPA-1564-2016).
Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 6 and 8 (in LPA-210, 348-2017).
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana.
****
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
In this batch of LPAs, common questions of law arise and so they
are being disposed off by this common order.
The appellants in all these cases are seeking quashing of orders
passed terminating their services without any show cause notices and
opportunity of hearing vide Annexures P-25 and P-26 collectively.
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
It is not in dispute that the appellants had been appointed as
Assistant Linemen/Shift Attendants in the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam
Ltd. ('HVPNL' for short) and had been working from 1993 to 1996.
Their selection made in the year 1992 was quashed by this Court
being faulty and the said decision was also upheld by the Supreme Court.
The judgment in CWP No.17812 of 1997 on 03.12.2008
The selection was quashed by this Court in CWP No.17812 of
1997 on 03.12.2008. This Court had held that 336 Assistant Linemen
belonging to reserved category had obtained higher marks to the last general
category candidate; so they are to be treated in general category, and the next
336 candidates of reserved category are entitled to be appointed.
Similarly, this Court had also held that 75 Shift Attendants
belonging to reserved category had obtained higher marks to the last general
candidate and hence, direction was issued that next 75 candidates of reserved
category be offered appointments.
Later events
Thereafter, it is not disputed that 336 Assistant Linemen of
reserved category were offered appointments and similarly, 75 Shift
Attendants were also offered appointments.
Of them, only 94 Assistant Linemen did not join and likewise, 59 Shift
Attendants had also not joined.
In the process of implementing the judgment dt.03.12.2008
passed in CWP No.17812 of 1997, a fresh merit list was prepared in the year
2009, but the appellants were not selected or given appointment.
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
The judgment in CWP-22873-2010 and CWP-6101-2010
So they filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No. CWP-22873-2010 and
CWP-6101-2010 before this Court seeking a direction for their
selection/appointment on the ground that they have secured more marks i.e. 76
marks against the last selectee under BC category who secured only 63 marks,
though according to the respondents, the last selectee secured 70 marks.
Relying on the decision of this Court in CWP No.5356 of 2010
dt.06.12.2010, the said CWP was allowed and it was held that the only ground
of denying appointment to the appellants is that they did not indicate the
category in the answer sheet; merely because they did not indicate their
category in the answer-sheet, it does not mean that they cannot be considered
under the reserved category, while previously they had applied under the
reserved category of 'BC' in the year 1992; denying selection/appointment
under such circumstances is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India; and therefore the respondents were directed to declare the appellants
as selected, and consequently, issue appointment orders to them against the
posts of Assistant Linemen under the reserved category of 'BC-A'.
Review Application No.137 -2011 in CWP-22873-2010 and CWP-6101-2010
An application seeking review of the said order was filed but no
stay was granted in the review application.
Thereafter, a contempt case bearing No.COCP-2987-2012 was
filed in which notice of motion was issued for 15.11.2012.
After receipt of notice, the respondent gave appointments to all the
appellants in view of the pendency of the contempt petition against the existing
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
vacancies vide orders dt.15.11.2012 and 23.11.2012 (Annexures P-17 and P-18
collectively). In some of the appointment letters, a condition was imposed that
said appointments would be subject to decision of the review petition.
The review application No.137 of 2011 in CWP-22873-2010 and
CWP-6101-2010 was subsequently allowed on 11.12.2014 vide Annexure P-
23. The Court opined that as per record, none of the appellants secured 76
marks as recorded by it in its order dt. 22.12.2010; that the Court had
proceeded on a factually incorrect basis before treating the appellants' cases as
similar with that of one Amit Chand; that it is an error apparent on the face of
the record, and the order passed on 22.12.2010 is therefore to be recalled.
Events after the Review Applications were allowed
After the review applications were allowed, the respondents
decided to terminate the services of the appellants, even though by then, the
appellants had completed their period of probation.
The appellants therefore challenged the termination orders in
CWP-16745-2015, CWP-16751-2015, and CWP-19626-2015.
The common order of the learned Single Judge
These writ petitions were tagged along with CWP-22873-2010
and CWP-6101-2010 and were disposed off by a common order by the learned
Single Judge.
On 24.02.2016, this Court had directed the respondents to state
whether in compliance of the judgment passed in CWP-17812-1997
dt.03.12.2008, the department was required to prepare a waiting list in case of
non-joining of some Assistant Linemen and Shift Attendants and counsel for
respondents were also asked to get instructions with regard to availability of
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
the posts as the appellants were appointed in the year 2012 during the
pendency of the contempt petition which was later disposed of on 15.11.2012
as infructuous.
Thereafter an affidavit dt. 29.03.2016 was filed by the Deputy
Secretary/HR & SR, HVPNL, Panchkula, clarifying that pursuant to the
directions given in CWP-17812-1997, offer of appointment was made to 336
Assistant Linemen and 75 Shift Attendants, but no waiting list was prepared
as offers were issued pursuant to recruitment process carried out in 1997. It
was further stated that as per instructions dt.20.01.1998, the validity of the
waiting list of the year 1997 would be over by 1998; no post pursuant to
recruitment carried out in 1997 as per advertisement No.CRA-143, was lying
vacant; after issuing offer of appointment to the 336 reserved category
candidates for the post of Assistant Linemen and 75 reserved category
candidates for the post of Shift Attendants, requisition for filling up of various
posts including Assistant Linemen and Shift Attendants was sent; and
subsequently, 2329 posts of Assistant Linemen were advertised on 08.07.2008
by Haryana Staff Selection Commission on behalf of UHBVNL, DHBVNL
and HVPNL and recruitment was made in the year 2010.
It was further stated that 1000 posts of Assistant Linemen were
again advertised on 19.03.2011 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on
behalf of UHBVNL and DHBVNL and recruitment had been made in the year
2012.
It was also stated that recruitment process of filling up of 552
posts of Shift Attendants was initiated vide advertisement No.13/2007 and
recruitment was made in the year 2010.
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
It was stated that the offer of appointment to 12
candidates/appellants was given in compliance of the order dt.22.12.2010 in
CWP-22873-2010 and CWP-6101-2010 subject to the outcome of Review
Application No.137 of 2011 and 138 of 2011; as on 24.02.2016, several posts
of Assistant Linemen and Shift Attendants were vacant in UHBVNL,
DHBVNL and HVPNL; these vacancies became available in 2012 and no
backlog of vacancies was available qua selection carried out in 1997, and so,
the appellants cannot be appointed on the above said posts.
The learned Single Judge referred to the above affidavit and also
the decision rendered by this Court on 13.01.2016 in CWP-28663-2013,
wherein the writ petitioner had made a claim that persons junior to him had
been appointed and he had a prior right of appointment, and had sought the
benefit of judgment dt.03.12.2008 rendered in CWP-17812-1997, but the said
writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn; that he was not a party to the writ
petitions; validity of the waiting list was over by 1998; and so he had no right
to be appointed on account of non-joining of some candidates pursuant to a
selection made way back in 1997 and the decision given by the Court on
03.12.2008.
The learned Single Judge applied the said judgment and held that
appellants had approached the Court in 2010 and were seeking appointment on
vacant posts on the ground that persons who had been appointed way back in
1997 had got less marks than them; that their claim was that in the merit list
prepared in 1997, they had got higher marks than the selected candidates in
SC-A, SC-B, BC-A AND BC-B categories; that they are seeking
accommodation on account of non-joining of some of the candidates; and
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
instead of approaching the Court in 1997, they filed the writ petitions in the
year 2010. Reliance was also placed on the decision in CWP-14137-2010
dt.23.08.2011 holding that candidates who had filed original petition had been
given appointments out of the earlier ranking list, and persons who were not
parties to the original writ petition had no right to claim appointment on
account of non-joining of some candidates.
The LPA
Assailing the same, this batch of LPAs was filed.
Sh. R.K. Malik, Sr. Counsel and other counsel appearing for the
appellants sought to contend that the learned Single Judge erred in taking the
view that the appellants had no right to continue in service, and the learned
Single Judge ought to have held that in the vacancies which remained unfilled
after the decision rendered by this Court in CWP-17812-1997 dt.03.12.2008,
the appellants were entitled to be appointed and their services cannot be
terminated by the respondents.
The learned Advocate General for the State of Haryana strongly
refuted the said contentions and supported the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. He pointed out that no post pursuant to recruitment carried out in 1997
was lying vacant; merely because 94 Assistant Linemen posts and 59 Shift
Attendants posts remained vacant on account of the fact that the reserved
candidates did not join their duties, after being invited to do so after the
decision in CWP-17812-1997, the appellants cannot claim any right to be
appointed in those vacancies because the waiting list had a validity of only one
year which lapsed in the year 1998 itself. He contended that the appellants had
no right to be appointed on account of non-joining of some candidates,
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
pursuant to a selection made way back in 1997, since the validity of the
waiting list of the year 1997 would be over by 1998 as per instructions
dt.20.01.1998.
Consideration by the Court
We have noted the contentions of both sides.
Admittedly, the appellants are claiming their right to be appointed
against the 94 Assistant Linemen and 59 Shift Attendants posts (forming part
of the 336 Assistant Linemen and 75 Shift Attendants posts), in which
reserved category candidates were offered appointments after the decision of
this Court on 03.12.2008 in CWP-17812-1997, when these posts remained
unfilled, because 94 Assistant Linemen and 59 Shift Attendants did not join.
The appellants cannot rely on the order dt.03.12.2008 in
CWP-17812-1997 for the reason that the said order had directed the then
HSEB to consider appointments of at least 336 reserved category candidates
for the posts of Assistant Linemen and 75 reserved category candidates for the
posts of Shift Attendants from amongst candidates of reserved category who
may have been ousted as a result of wrong appointments made in the reserved
category on account of the fact that though the said candidates of the year 1997
selection belonged to the reserved category had obtained higher marks to the
last general category candidate, and instead of being treated in the general
category, they were appointed against reserved category posts.
Once, the HSEB/HVPNL had complied with the direction and
offered appointments to the next 336 candidates of reserved category among
Assistant Linemen and 75 candidates of reserved category among Shift
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
Attendants for filling up 75 Shift Attendants posts, nothing more was required
to be done by the respondents.
If some of these posts remained unfilled because the candidates
offered such appointments by the respondents did not join, the only course
open to the respondents was to take up the fresh selection because the validity
of the waiting list of 1997, pursuant to which the appellants had secured
marks, had ended in 1998.
Unless the waiting list in law remains live and valid, the
appellants could not have been issued appointment orders on 15.11.2012 and
23.11.2012.
They were given such appointment orders only because of the
contempt application No.COCP-2987-2012 seeking implementation of the
order dt.22.12.2010 passed in CWP-22873-2010.
Once the said order came to be reviewed on 11.12.2014 and was
recalled, the services of the appellants had to be terminated, and no fault can
be found with the respondents for taking such action.
The learned Single Judge was also right in holding that some of
the appellants could not have filed writs in the year 2010 seeking appointment
in the vacancies arising out of the 1997 selection, when they were not parties
to CWP-17812-1997, and had not approached the Court in 1997 to be
considered in those vacancies.
We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had properly
considered the matter in the right perspective and the order of the learned
Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of jurisdiction
under the Letters Patent Appeal.
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
LPA-1543-2016 and other connected cases
2023:PHHC:056119-DB
Accordingly, all the LPAs are dismissed.
No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
April 19, 2023.
Mohit Goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:056119-DB
12 of 12
