Punjab-Haryana High Court
Renu Bala vs The Secretary Department Of Education ... on 2 July, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081499
CWP-2668-1999 (O&M) and other connected cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(205) CWP-2668-1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 02.07.2024
Renu Bala
...Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Department of Education, Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh and others
...Respondents
(205/2) CWP-10991-1999 (O&M)
Subash Chander Verma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
(205/3) CWP-7441-2001
Meenakshi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-2668-1999.
Mr. Shivdeep, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-10991-1999.
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 23:32:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081499
CWP-2668-1999 (O&M) and other connected cases
2
Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate for
Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-7441-2001.
Mr. Amar Preet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, three writ petitions, the details of
which have been given in the heading, are being decided as all these
petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from
CWP-2668-1999.
3. In the present petition, the challenge is to the selection made
for the post of Biology Lecturer in the Department of Education,
Government of Punjab.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the selection
process, which was undertaken by the respondents, was arbitrary and
illegal and the claim of the petitioner has not been considered in
accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
submits that the selection was made in a manner required and no
grievance can be raised by the petitioner. Learned State counsel further
submits that the selected candidates, who were selected against the post in
question and are working for approximately the last three decades, have
not been made party.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081499
CWP-2668-1999 (O&M) and other connected cases
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
7. It is a settled principle of law that the grievance of a party
can only be taken into consideration in case, when all the parties who are
likely to be affected by the outcome of the said grievance, are before the
Court. Though, a selection process has been challenged by the petitioner
but the candidates who have been selected and will be ousted in case,
claim of the petitioner is accepted, are not made party.
8. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022 titled as Ram
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 28.09.2022, in case the
candidates who are to be affected by the outcome of the petition are not
party to the petition, grievance of the petitioners cannot be adjudicated.
Relevant paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment are as under :-
"8. This Court in the case of Mumbai International
Airport Private Limited (supra) had an occasion to consider
as to who (2016) 2 SCC 779 (2010) 7 SCC 417 is a
necessary party to the proceedings. It will be relevant to refer
to paragraph 15 of the said judgment, which reads thus:
"15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to
have been joined as a party and in whose absence no
effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a
"necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is
liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party
who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081499
CWP-2668-1999 (O&M) and other connected cases
presence would enable the court to completely,
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters
in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person
in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.
If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary
party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him,
against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a
person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit
property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff,
will not make such person a necessary party or a
proper party to the suit for specific performance."
9. It could thus be seen that a necessary party is
a person in whose absence no effective decree could be
passed by the Court. It has been held that if a
"necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is
liable to be dismissed."
9. Even otherwise, keeping in view the reply filed, the
petitioner was at Serial No. 43 in the select list and total posts to be filled
were 34, so the petitioner could not be given appointment to the post of
Biology Lecturer. The said fact has gone un-rebutted as no replication to
the written statement has been filed.
10. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in these petitions and the same are accordingly
dismissed.
11. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081499
CWP-2668-1999 (O&M) and other connected cases
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
July 02, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
