Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munesh vs Project Officer & Ors on 5 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046593
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:046593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
217
RSA-2846-2016 (O&M)
Decided on :05.04.2024
SMT. MUNESH ......APPELLANT
Versus
PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT I.C.D.S. CELL, NARNAUL AND
OTHERS . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 01.03.2016 vide which, the
judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15.02.2014 was set aside and the
suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for correct appreciation of
the issue in hand.
3. The respondents issued an advertisement for appointment on the
post of Anganwari Worker in Village Sayana Tehsil & District
Mahendergarh. The appellant-plaintiff competed for the said post, but the
respondents did not conclude the said process of selection for the post in
question and the interview for the post in question was ordered to be
conducted again keeping in view the certain allegations.
4. The said decision to conduct the interview again was challenged
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046593
RSA-2846-2016 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:046593
by the appellant-plaintiff by filing the civil suit before the trial Court. The
Civil suit came to be allowed on 15.02.2024 and direction was given that the
selection process be concluded on the basis of interview that was already
held by the department concerned.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the
trial Court dated 15.02.2004, the respondent-appellant filed an appeal before
the Lower Appellate Court which came to be decided on 01.03.2016. The
Learned lower appellate Court held that the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court that there was no irregularities in the earlier interview, is
contrary to the evidence which has come on record and the decision by the
department to hold the fresh interviews needs no interference at the hands of
the Court.
6. The said judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court
dated 01.03.2016 is under challenge in the present regular second appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that once,
the trial Court while passing the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2014 has
recorded the findings that there was no irregularities found in the earlier
interview held for the post in question, the same should have been
maintained by the learned Lower Appellate Court rather than to set-aside the
judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15.02.2014.
8. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that the Lower
Appellate Court while passing the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2016 has
given the reasons that there were complaints raised against the earlier
interview held by the department and also the marks being given to the
candidates by the selecting agencies were not in accordance with the criteria
fixed by the department concerned and the complaints were looked into by
the competent authority and then the decision was taken to hold the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046593
RSA-2846-2016 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:046593
interview a fresh which action needs no interference by the Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
10. The Court is not required to sit as a Appellate Body over the
decision of the selecting Committee. Once, it has already come on record
that there were complaints with regard to conduct of the interview and
certain mala fides were also attached so as to show the marks given to the
appellant as compared to the other candidates was disproportionate, the
decision of the department which has been taken with bona fide intention
and after scrutiny of the record, has rightly been dealt by the lower
Appellate Court.
11. The trial Court while recording the findings in the judgment and
decree dated 15.02.2014 has mentioned that there should have been an
enquiry. Even if, there is no enquiry conducted but the competent
authority keeping in view the allegations made in the complaint coupled
with the scrutiny of the record finds some discrepancies in the interview
process, selecting agency is well within its right to decide as to whether
interview process already undertaken need a review or not. Once, a bona
fide decision has been taken by the competent authority to hold the
interview again, the same should not have been interfered by the trial Court
and judgment and the decree of the trial Court has rightly been set-aside by
the Lower Appellate Court.
12. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has been required to
point out any perversity in the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate
Court, but no such perversity in the judgment and decree of the Lower
Appellate Court has been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, hence,
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case recorded
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046593
RSA-2846-2016 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:046593
herein above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the
present regular second appeal, hence, the same stands dismissed.
13. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
05.04.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
