Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjot Singh vs Punjab Cooperative Supply And ... on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
CWP-27315-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
217 CWP-27315-2017
Date of reserve : 09.01.2024
Date of pronouncement : 29.01.2024
CHARANJOT SINGH
...... Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING
FEDERATION AND OTHERS
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vibhav Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Vishavjeet S. Beniwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Supinder Singh Sohi, Advocate for
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate
for the respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Respondent nos.3 to 5 have already been proceeded ex parte
vide order dated 22.11.2023.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant
petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of
Certiorari for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent nos.3 to 5 on
the post of Assistant Field Officer and further seeks writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Field Officer
w.e.f. the date of appointment of respondent nos.3 to 5, with all consequential
benefits.
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as have
been pleaded in the writ petition, are that the Respondent - Punjab State Co-
operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as
'MARKFED'), for recruitment to 327 posts, invited applications through online
mode for various posts, including 62 posts of 'Assistant Field Officer', which
included 07 posts for General Category and 27 posts for Scheduled Castes. The
last date for submission of online applications was 30.05.2016 and the last date
for depositing the fee was 06.06.2016.
3. On 31.05.2016, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Field
Officer in General Category and thereafter appeared for written examination/ test.
After the written test, counselling list of meritorious candidates was prepared and
as per that list, counselling was scheduled for three spells i.e. first counselling
from 25.10.2016 to 28.10.2016; second counselling from 17.11.2016 &
18.11.2016 and the third counselling on 26.12.2016. The petitioner was called in
the second counselling, which was to be held on 17.11.2016. The case of the
petitioner is that he could not appear in the counselling held on 17.11.2016, as he
fell ill and was suffering from severe back pain and Chickenpox. It is the further
case of the petitioner that on 21.12.2016, the petitioner alongwith his father
visited the office of the respondent-Federation, but the Managing Director was
not present, as it was informed by the Dealing Assistant - Mr. Jasbir Singh that
the Managing Director was not available. Thereafter, the petitioner on 22.12.2016
again personally visited the office of respondent no.1 and met respondent no.2 -
Managing Director of the Federation and submitted written application alongwith
medical certificate issued by the Doctor and requested that since the 3rd
counselling is scheduled to be held on 26.12.2016, his case may be considered in
the said counselling i.e. on 26.12.2016. However, his name was not included in
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
the schedule of third counselling held on 26.12.2016. It is his further case that
respondent nos.3 to 5 are lower in merit to the petitioner and were at Serial
Nos.14, 15 and 19, respectively, in order of merit, as the name of the petitioner
was at Serial No.13 and since the said respondents have been appointed by
ignoring the claim of the petitioner, therefore, their selection is liable to be set
aside and he is entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Field Officer.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
absence of the petitioner on 17.11.2016, when the second counselling was
scheduled to be held, was bona fide as he was suffering from severe back pain and
Chickenpox and on his recovery, he immediately submitted a request to the
Managing Director, MARKFED, on 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) alongwith his
medical certificate and since the third counselling was scheduled for 26.12.2016,
therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent - MARKFED to allow the
petitioner to participate in the third counselling. He further submits that the
action of the respondents is also discriminatory as one of the candidate, who was
also scheduled to appear in the second counselling alongwith the petitioner on
17.11.2016, but he could not appear so, was allowed to participate in the third
counselling on 26.12.2016.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has referred
to the written statement filed by them and argued that since the petitioner has
failed to appear in the scheduled second counselling held on 17.11.2016 and no
intimation whatsoever, prior to the 17.11.2016, was given by the petitioner about
his proposed absence, therefore, he had no right to participate in the third
counselling on 26.12.2016, as the counselling schedule itself provides that in
case a candidates fails to appear on the given date, it will be assumed that he is
not interested in taking up the appointment and the candidate next in merit shall
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
be offered the post. He also submits that the request of the petitioner was
received after more than one month of conclusion of the 2nd counselling and
therefore, request of the petitioner, including requests of all other candidates,
whose requests were received after the date of counselling, were rejected. He
further submits that as many as 56 candidates were absent in the counselling held
on 17.11.2016 and the name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.45 in the said Absent
List (Annexure R-1, 2/3). He further submits that the action of the respondent -
MARKFED in not considering the claim of the petitioner in the third counselling
is perfectly legal and valid and as per the criteria fixed for the selection process
qua the advertised posts.
6. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as
counsel for the respondents and perused the record with their able assitance.
7. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner and other candidates,
who were called for counselling, were required to be personally present alongwith
his original certificates regarding his age proof, Punjabi pass, essential
qualification, computer knowledge, experience certificate as per prescribed
qualification / requirement of the post and certificate of category under which
reservation / age relaxation has been sought. The relevant portion of the letter
dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure P-4), whereby the schedule for second counselling
was issued, reads as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" Dated: 11.11.2016
Schedule for 2nd counselling:-
On the basis of the written test held on 25th September, 2016
the detailed result has been uploaded on the Markfed website
www.markfedpunjab.com.
As per the merit list, 1st counselling was scheduled from 25th to
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
28th October 2016 in the office of Punjab State Cooperative Supply
and Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED), Plot No.4, Sector
-35-B, Chandigarh (Annexure-L dated 7.10.2016) and result of the
counselling has been uploaded on Markfed website on 11.11.2016
(Annexure-X). After considering the eligible candidates, some posts
in various categories still remain unfilled. Therefore, candidates who
are next in merit are being called for second counselling.
The following candidates are required to personally present
their original certificates regarding age proof, Punjabi pass,
essential qualification, computer knowledge, experience certificate
as per the prescribed Qualification/ requirement of the post and
certificate of category under which reservation/ age relaxation has
been sought in the office of Punjab State Cooperative Supply and
Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED), Plot No.4, Sector-35-B,
Chandigarh on 17th & 18th Nov. 2016 as per the schedule given
below:-
Sr. No Name of Post Category Roll Numbers as per merit list
4. Assistant Field General 575701, 576183, 575874, 576072,
Officer 576036, 575767, 575837, 575832,
575604, 575759, 575915
SC 576005, 575606, 576233, 576125,
575656, 576123, 576068
BC 575724, 576079, 575590, 575568,
575588, 575818, 575006
Sportsman 575867, 576179
(Gen)
Sportsman 576152, 576233
(SC)
In case, a candidate fails to appear on the given date, it will
be assumed that candidate is not interested in taking up the
appointment and the candidate next in merit shall be offered the
post. Candidates approximately two times the number of the
remaining vacant posts after the 1st counselling have been invited
for verification of their documents.
It is clarified that mere appearing in the test, qualifying the
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
same & invitation to the counselling does not in any way entitle the
candidate for appointment to the post applied for. Appointment to
the post is subject to fulfillment of prescribed qualification,
experience & verification of original documents in this regard.
Further the appointment shall be strictly as per the merit
depending upon number of posts available in the particular
category. Reservation shall be as per policy/ instructions of the
Govt of Punjab.
Candidates are advised to submit one set of Self Attested
copies of all the documents on scheduled date of counselling. "
xxx xxx xxx xxx
8. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear in the second counselling
held on 17.11.2016, and it is the case of the respondent - MARKFED that not
only the petitioner was absent as many as 56 candidates were absent in the second
counselling held on 17.11.2016, as is clear from the Absent List (Annexure R-1,
2/3).
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Asha versus Pt. B.D.
Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors.' 2012 (3) S.C.T. 457, which was a
case relating to the admission of M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses, has held that the
Schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of merit and all the stakeholders including the
concerned authorities should adhere to it and should in no circumstances permit
its violation. The findings recorded in the relevant para(s) of the said Judgement
are as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" 26. Strict adherence to the time schedule has again been a matter
of controversy before the courts. The courts have consistently taken
the view that the schedule is sacrosanct like the rule of merit and all
the stakeholders including the concerned authorities should adhere
to it and should in no circumstances permit its violation. This, in our
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
opinion, gives rise to dual problem. Firstly, it jeopardizes the interest
and future of the students. Secondly, which is more serious, is that
such action would be ex- facie in violation of the orders of the court,
and therefore, would invite wrath of the courts under the provisions
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In this regard, we may
appropriately refer to the judgments of this Court in the cases of
Priya Gupta (supra), State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar Sinha & Ors.
[(1990) 4 SCC 624], Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh &
Ors. [(2002) 7 SCC 258], GSF Medical and Paramedical
Association v. Association of Management of Self Financing
Technical Institutes and Anr. [2003 (12) SCC 414], Christian
Medical College v. State of Punjab and Others [(2010) 12 SCC
167].
29. In the prospectus issued by the respondents, Chapter 9 dealt with
the method of selection and admission. Clause 3.1 stated that it was
mandatory for the qualified candidates to appear before the
counselling Board in person. No relaxation was to be given to the
candidates who were unable to appear before the counselling Board
on the fixed dates. Further, it was stated in the prospectus that at the
time of the counselling, the candidates would be required to exercise
their choice for the institution and the course. The allotment of the
seats would be made according to the merit and preference exercised
by the candidates at the time of counselling. During the subsequent
counselling the Course/Institution would be allotted as per the merit
of the candidates depending on the availability of seats. "
xxx xxx xxx xxx
10. Further, the Full Bench of this Court in case(s) titled as 'Amardeep
Singh Sahota versus State of Punjab' 1993 (4) S.C.T. 328 and 'Rahul
Prabhakar versus Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar' 1997 (3) S.C.T. 526
has held that the Prospectus has the force of law and its conditions have to be
strictly construed and rights of parties are governed by the terms and conditions
mentioned therein and any relaxation in that matter may lead to illegal and
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
arbitrary action on the part of the authorities.
11. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as 'Talveen
Kuar versus Punjab University and another', 2010 (8) S.L.R. 582, wherein the
application form of the petitioner was received by the University beyond the time
fixed for receipt of such form, despite he being fetched the ranked No.15 against
80 cases, while referring the case of 'Sachin Sharma versus Punjab University',
2002 (1) S.C.T. 1124 and finding the issue/question to be res integra held that the
petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the counselling. The relevant
portion of the Judgement is as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" The petitioner participated in Common Law Admission Test
(CLAT), 2009, conducted by respondent University and obtained
rank No. 15 against 80 seats. The petitioner was required to fill up
the admission form for seeking admission in the Five Years Law
Course for which the necessary advertisement/notification was
issued and the last date for submitting the admission form was
30.6.2009. It is petitioner's own case that on account of her illness
she sent form on 30.6.2009 from Jammu. This clearly implies that the
form has been received by the respondent University beyond time
fixed for receipt of the application form. On that basis, the petitioner
has been denied participation in the counselling. The petitioner has
accordingly approached this Court through the medium of this
petition seeking a direction to permit him to participate in the
counselling and to admit him in the Five Years Law Course in the
Law Department of respondent -University. The averment made in
this petition, itself establish that the petitioner admission form was
not submitted within the prescribed period. This question is no more
res integra having been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Sachin Sharma v. Punjab University, 2002 (1) S.C.T.
1124 wherein following observation has been made:-
"4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
length. The facts are hardly in dispute in the present case. The
petitioner alongwith number of other candidate could not
submit their final year result or even detailed mark-sheet
before the competent authority within the prescribed period
i.e. 4.7.2001. They were unable to produce the said documents
even by extended date i.e. 20.7.2001. The result was declared
on 20.8.2001. Thereafter the petitioner could have produced
the said result before the authorities. It is clear that, no fault is
attributable to any of the respondents. As per the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Sahota
v. State of Punjab and others, 1993 (4) SCT 328 (P&H) (FB)
: 1993(4) SLR 673 and Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical
University, Jalandhar and others, 1997 (3) SCT 526 (P&H)
(FB) : 1997 (3) PLR 13 terms and conditions of the brochure
are binding...."
2. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner,
despite his higher rank in the test, I find no merit in this petition
which is accordingly dismissed. "
xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. So far as the argument raised by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner with regard to the discrimination that one candidate, who was also
scheduled to appear in the second counselling on 18.11.2016, though absented
was allowed to participate in the third counselling, is concerned, it is an admitted
fact on record that the said candidate had informed the respondent authorities in
advance on 17.11.2016 that he shall not be able to attend the counselling on
18.11.2016 due to severe fever (Typhoid) and therefore, he was allowed to appear
in the third counselling. However, the case of the petitioner is totally different
from the said candidate, as no intimation of any kind whatsoever was ever given
by the petitioner in advance, as given by the said candidate in his case, prior to the
scheduled counselling held on 17.11.2016, rather the petitioner had submitted his
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
application on 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) i.e. after a lapse of more than a month
from the date of his counselling held on 17.11.2016, requesting the respondents
to allow him to participate in the third counselling scheduled to be held on
26.12.2016.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to appear in the second
counselling held on 17.11.2016, therefore, in terms of the conditions of the
schedule, the post has been offered to the next available candidate and the
petitioner cannot take benefit of his own wrong by not participating in the second
counselling and submitting the request on 22.12.2016 i.e. after a period of more
than one month from the scheduled second counselling, so as to to allow him to
appear in the third counselling. Respondents No.3 to 5 are although lower in
merit than the petitioner, however, they have participated in the counselling and
have been offered appointments, therefore, no fault of any kind whatsoever can be
attributed / found in the action of the respondent-authorities in appointing
respondent nos.3 to 5 to the post of Assistant Field Officer, when as many as 56
other candidates were also absent on 17.11.2016, when the second counselling
was held.
14. Keeping in view the foregoing discussions, no relief can be granted
to the petitioner, as the petition is bereft of any merit and, therefore, the same is
dismissed with no orders as to costs.
January 29, 2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
mkkoundal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011799
10 of 10
