Rajwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab Etc
2024 Latest Caselaw 7911 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab Etc on 16 April, 2024

                                                                                2024:PHHC:051073


              209
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                  AT CHANDIGARH


                                                                CWP-14396-2016
                                                                Date of Decision: 16.04.2024



              RAJWINDER KAUR
                                                                                   ...Petitioner
                                                             Versus
              STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

                                                                                   ...Respondents



              CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
              Present:-                Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate with
                                       Mrs. Shikha Singla, Advocate and
                                       Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
                                       for the petitioner.

                                       Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

                                       Mr. R.S. Dhillon, Advocate
                                       for respondent No.5.

                                       Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate for
                                       Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate
                                       for respondent No.6.

                                       Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate with
                                       Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate
                                       for respondent No.7.
                                              *****

              JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of

Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of appointment letter dated

05.11.2013(Annexure P-4).

authenticity of this order/judgment.

2. The respondent No.3 issued an advertisement dated 06.06.2013

inviting applications for the post of Anganwari helpers and workers at

different blocks of District Sangrur. The petitioner pursuant to said

application applied for the advertised post. In the advertisement, the last date

for filing application was notified as 20.06.2013. The respondent-Child

Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh prepared merit list (Annexure

P-2) wherein name of petitioner figured at serial No.1. The date of interview

was 13.08.2013. The respondent did not conduct interview on the said date

and finally selected respondent No.7 instead of petitioner and issued her

appointment letter dated 05.11.2013.

3. Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate submits that last date to

apply, as per advertisement, was 20.06.2013, thus, no application filed after

the said date could be entertained. The respondent No.7 filed application on

05.08.2013 and came to be selected. There was connivance between

respondent No.7 and Child Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh.

Thus, in a stealth manner, appointment of respondent No.7 was made after

accepting her application beyond cut off date.

4. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for private respondent

(respondent No.7) submits that Child Development & Project Officer,

Bhawanigarh vide communication dated 29.07.2013, in view of Panchayat

Elections, extended the last date for filing application. As per said

communication, the last date was extended up to 09.08.2013 and respondent

No.7 applied on 05.08.2013, thus, argument of petitioner that she had

applied after cut off date is misconceived. She had applied in view of

extended date and no prejudice was caused to petitioner on account of

authenticity of this order/judgment.

extension of date. The merit list was prepared by Child Development &

Project Officer, Bhawanigarh and same authority had extended last date,

thus, petitioner cannot be heard to say that last date was extended by an

officer who was incompetent.

5. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, supporting case of private

respondents, submits that as per instructions of State Government, the Child

Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh is competent to extend last

date for filing application and date was actually extended. Thus, there was

no violation of procedure and respondent No.7 was rightly selected.

6. Faced with this, Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate submits

that original advertisement was issued by District Program Officer, Sangrur

who was competent authority to issue advertisement and amend the same.

Child Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh was incompetent to

extend the last date for filing application.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record with their able assistance.

8. The claim of the petitioner is that respondent No.7 has been

wrongly appointed because last date for filing application was 20.06.2013

whereas she has filed application on 05.08.2013. She further claims that

Child Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh was incompetent to

amend advertisement as original advertisement was issued by District

Program Officer who had fixed 20.06.2013 as last date for filing application.

9. The State in its reply has contended that Child Development &

Project Officer, Bhawanigarh was Competent Authority to extend last date

authenticity of this order/judgment.

for filing application. The State is further averring that last date was

extended in view of Panchayat elections.

10. From the perusal of record, it comes out that Child

Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh extended last date for filing

application. The respondent No.7 applied for the post on 05.08.2013 and as

per letter dated 29.07.2013, the date was extended up to 09.08.2013. The

petitioner is harping on the issue that Child Development & Project Officer,

Bhawanigarh was not competent and prescribed procedure was not followed

to extend last date for filing application. The State is claiming that Child

Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh was competent. The petitioner

is alleging that merit list (Annexure P-2) was prepared wherein name of

respondent No.7 was not appearing. The said list was prepared prior to

09.08.2013 and it was also prepared by Child Development & Project

Officer, Bhawanigarh. These facts collectively indicate that as per

petitioner, date was not extended or if it was extended, it was by an

incompetent officer. As per respondent, the date was extended by a

Competent Officer. There is no evidence disclosing connivance between

respondent No.7 and Child Development & Project Officer, Bhawanigarh,

thus, for any procedural as technical defect, on the part of officials, the

respondent No.7 cannot be made to suffer.

11. There is another aspect of the matter. The respondent No.7 was

appointed in 2013 and a period of 11 years has passed away. Concededly,

she is working since then. She must have acquired good experience. From

the record, it does not come out that there was any lapse on her part.

Violation of procedure, if any, was on the part of the authority. The

authenticity of this order/judgment.

appointment of respondent No.7 at this belated stage does not deserve to be

quashed on technical or procedural grounds.

A five Judge Bench of Supreme Court in "Sivanandan C.T. &

Ors. Vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 994", while

holding that there was violation of procedure while making appointment of

judicial officer, has held that it would be contrary to public interest to direct

the induction of petitioners into Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of

more than six years. The candidates who have been selected nearly six years

ago cannot be unseated. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as

under:-

"55. The following are our conclusions in view of the above discussions:

(i) The principles of good administration requires that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14;

(ii) An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14;

(iii) A public authority must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the Court that its decision was in the public interest to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation;

(iv) The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules.

(v) The High Court's decision to apply the minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

authenticity of this order/judgment.

(vi) In terms of relief, we hold that it would be contrary to the public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Services after the lapse of more than six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all qualified and have been serving the district judiciary of the state.

Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in preference to those who are holding judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state and its citizens of the benefit of these experienced judicial officers at a senior position would not be in public interest."

[Emphasis supplied]

12. In the wake of above discussion and judgment of Supreme

Court in Sivanandan C.T. (supra), this Court finds that present petition

deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

                                                                          (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
              16.04.2024                                                       JUDGE
              himanshu

                                       Whether speaking/reasoned                 Yes/No

                                       Whether reportable                        Yes/No







authenticity of this order/judgment.