Deepak Puri And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 12112 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101793




CWP-38107-2018            2023:PHHC:101793                         I

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


(217)                            CWP-38107-2018
                                 Date of Decision : August 07, 2023


Deepak Puri and others                                      .. Petitioners



                                 Versus

State of Haryana and others                                 .. Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra 'Sirsa', Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners is to

direct the respondents to re-conduct the written examination for Group D

post as advertised vide Advertisement No.4/2018 dated 26.08.2018

(Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while holding

the written test, according to the selection process envisaged under the

Advertisement dated 26.08.2018 (Annexure P-1), 75% weightage was to be

given to General Awareness, Reasoning, Maths, Science, English and Hindi

as applicable and 25% weightage was to be given to History, Current

Affairs, Literature, Geography, Civics, Environment, Culture etc.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this

ratio has not been maintained while holding the written test, which has

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101793

CWP-38107-2018 2023:PHHC:101793 II

caused prejudice to the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the selection

for Group-D post in pursuance to the Advertisement in question has already

been finalized and the candidates have already been appointed and they are

working. In case the prayer of the petitioners is accepted, the selected

candidates not only lose their selection but the consequent appointment

also. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

candidates, who were likely to be affected by the outcome of the present

petition, are not party to the present petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that an option has been given to the learned

counsel for the petitioners to implead the candidates who are likely to be

affected but learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as large number

of candidates had been selected and appointed, he is not in a position to

implead the candidates.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once

the Commission has done wrong, the petitioners are not liable to implead all

the beneficiaries of the said illegal act.

8. The question whether the any act on the part of the

Commission is bad or not, will be decided as and when the prayer of the

petitioners is to be adjudicated upon merits. The prayer of the petitioners

cannot be adjudicated on merits until, all the candidates, who are likely to

be affected, are parties before this Court, hence, the said ground being

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners not to implead the affected

parties, cannot be accepted.

                                       2 of 3

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101793




CWP-38107-2018           2023:PHHC:101793                         III

9. Further, it is a settled principle of law that the candidates, who

are likely to be affected by the outcome of the writ petition, should be

impleaded as party and an order on merit can only be passed after giving

due opportunity to the affected parties. In the present case, the affected

parties are not before this Court as the selection process has already reached

its conclusion and even the appointments have already been made.

10. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2000 titled as State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar

Pradad Singh, decided on 27.04.2000, till all the affected parties are before

the Court, no order causing prejudice to them can be passed. Hence,

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the

settled principle of law, when despite giving opportunity, learned counsel

for the petitioners refused to implead the selected candidates as a party, the

prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered on merits and no order can be

passed.

11. Dismissed.

August 07, 2023                       (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha                                       JUDGE


            Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
            Whether reportable       : No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:101793

                                     3 of 3