Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Kumar vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 15 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004839
2024:PHHC:004839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213
CWP-12404-2016
Date of Decision : 15.01.2024
Parveen Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. A.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for the respondents.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction for deleting the clause of passing the
English and Punjabi typing test within the probation period as
mentioned in the eligibility criteria with a further prayer to direct the
respondents to conduct English as well as Punjabi typing test prior to
the appointment of the candidate as per the notification dated
17.08.2011 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Department of Personnel,
Government of Punjab with further prayer to include the clause of
conducting the English as well as Punjabi typing test prior to
appointment for the post of LDC/Cashier in view of the abovesaid
notification.
2. The brief facts as has been pleaded in the writ petition are
that an advertisement dated 17.06.2015 was issued by the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004839
2024:PHHC:004839
respondent/Department whereby various posts including the posts of
UDC/General (Office Assistant General) and LDC/Cashier were
advertised. The petitioner applied for both the posts by submitting
separate applications. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, he
was issued roll number for the posts of UDC/General and LDC/Cashier
and he appeared in the written test held for both the posts and secured
58.106% marks i.e. above than the qualifying marks for the post of
LDC/Cashier and 55.03% marks i.e. more than the qualifying marks for
the post of UDC/General. However, he could not make it to the final
merit list and has not been appointed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken a
preliminary objection by stating that neither the selected/appointed
candidates have been impleaded as party in the present petition nor the
petitioner has any locus to file the present writ petition as he is not one
of the candidates selected/appointed to the abovesaid posts. He further
submits that since the petitioner had already participated in the process
of selection, he cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, which are as per the UDC Ministerial Service Class III
Regulations, 1985 and the said Regulations have not been challenged in
the writ petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
court passed in Karnati Ravi and another Vs. Commissioner Survey
Settlements and Land Records and others : 2017(4) S.C.T. 397 and
judgments passed by this Court in CWP-12992-2013 titled as 'Parmod
Kaushal Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another'
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004839
2024:PHHC:004839
and other connected cases decided on 03.06.2016; CWP-18397-2012
titled as 'Sunil Badhan Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited'
decided on 05.10.2012 and CWP No.18959 of 2015 titled as 'Harjinder
Singh and others Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and
others' decided on 08.08.2016.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not impleaded the
selected/appointed candidates as parties in the present writ petition. The
final outcome of the present petition would affect their rights in case the
same is allowed. It is settled proposition of law that no one can be
condemned unheard and no adverse order can be passed against a party
without giving an opportunity of being heard. Further the petitioner
having participated in the process of selection and not having been
selected/appointed, he cannot challenge the qualifications/terms of the
advertisement lateron in view of law laid down in Parmod Kaushal's
case; Sunil Badhan's case and Harjinder Singh's case (supra).
Further, the said qualifications/conditions have been incorporated as per
1985 Regulations and in the absence of any challenge to the said
Regulations, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
6. Consequently, finding no merit in the instant petition, the
same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
15.01.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
Kothiyal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004839
3 of 3
