Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Singh vs Rohit Hurria And Ors on 6 March, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 20.02.2024
Date of Decision : 06.03.2024
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 (O&M)
Sanjeev Singh ... Appellant
Versus
Rohit Hurria and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. D. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Armaan Dahiya, Advocate, for respondent no.1.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 and 4.
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Appellant- Sanjeev Singh has preferred this appeal assailing the
judgment and order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby
the writ petition filed by respondent no.1- Rohit Hurria, was allowed and the
selection of the appellant on the post of Senior Manager (Estate), was set aside.
2. The brief facts are that an advertisement was issued on 15.09.2008
inviting applications for appointment on various posts in Haryana State Industrial
& Infrastructure Development Corporation- respondent no.2 (for short, 'the
respondent-Corporation'), which included two posts of Deputy General Manager
(Estate). The essential qualifications laid down were 1st Class B.E./ B.Tech or
MBA or both having minimum 12 years relevant post qualification experience in a
public undertaking or an organisation of repute.
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -2-
3. The writ petitioner - respondent no. 1 being eligible applied for the
said post. He was already working with the respondent Corporation as Technical
Manager since 28.10.1991 and had been promoted as Senior Manager Technical on
16.01.1996 and thereafter on the post of Assistant General Manager (Projects) on
06.07.2004. He was, therefore, aspirant for the post of Deputy General Manager
(Estate). Interviews were conducted for selection on 15.01.2009 by a Selection
Committee headed by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary
(Industries), Government of Haryana with two other members.
4. While the result was not declared/ published, one Divya Kamal was
appointed on one of the posts of Deputy General Manager (Estate) in February,
2009, however, the other post was left unfilled. On the other hand, the post of
Deputy General Manager (Estate) which had been advertised, was downgraded to
Senior Manager (Estate) and the appellant was appointed on the said post on the
recommendation of the Selection Committee.
5. It would be noticed that five posts of Senior Manager (Estate) were
separately advertised under the same advertisement. The appellant had not applied
for the post of Senior Manager (Estate) and had only participated in the interview
conducted for the post of Deputy General Manager (Estate). The appellant was not
an employee of the respondent- corporation.
6. The writ petitioner has stated that after moving application under the
Right to Information Act, he came to know through one person Vikas Chaudhary,
who approached this Court by way of CWP No. 16012 of 2014 - Vikas
Chaudhary vs Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corporation and others in relation to the inter-se seniority of Senior Managers
with the present appellant (respondent no.4 in the writ petition) about the aforesaid
facts and that the appellant had been appointed as Senior Manager (Estate).
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -3-
From the result which was declared, copy of which was obtained
through the RTI Act, and the pleadings made in the writ petition filed by Vikas
Chaudhary (supra), the writ petitioner learnt that Divya Kamal had secured 71
marks and was selected and appointed as Deputy General Manager (Estate) and the
writ petitioner - Rohit Hurria secured 61 marks, Jai Parkash secured 59 marks,
Rajiv Kumar Sharma secured 59 marks, Sanjay Garg secured 57 marks, Vinit
Bhatia secured 56 marks, Vikas Chaudhary secured 55 marks, Sanjeev Moudgil
secured 55 marks and Sanjeev Singh secured 54 marks. However, none of them
were selected as Deputy General Manager (Estate). Appellant Sanjeev Singh had
obtained 54 marks but was selected on the post of Senior Manager (Estate) though
he had never applied for the said post. The writ petitioner, therefore, claimed his
appointment as Deputy General Manager (Estate) and prayed to quash the
appointment of the appellant (respondent no.4 in the writ petition).
7. The learned Single Bench in its judgment has examined the claim of
the writ petitioner and after having noticed various judgments passed by the Apex
Court including Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1
(Umadevi-3), Nagendra Chandra etc. Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2008) 1
SCC 798, Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & others (2007) 4 SCC 54,
Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Om Prakash Dubey (2007) 1 SCC 373,
R.N.Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmiah & another (1972) 1 SCC 409, State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006, Parminder Kaur & others
Vs. State of Punjab & others 2017 (2) PLR 498, State of U.P. and others Vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others (2015) 1 SCC 347 and Madan Lal Vs. High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir and others (2014) 15 SCC 308, reached to the
following conclusion:-
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -4-
"22. It is fundamental to service law that no one can get a job
in Government or public sector, if he has not applied for it
within time fixed pursuant to a public notice/advertisement
issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling
advertised posts/vacancies in public sector undertakings etc.
created by statute. Employers have also to obey the principles
of Constitution enshrined in Article 14 so that their acts are not
criticized as arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
Besides, Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity to all citizens
to apply and compete for public posts. Merely because
respondent No.4 has continued to work since 2009 will not cure
the patent defect and illegality inherent in his appointment. If
the Selection Committee had reached the conclusion that
respondent No.4 was "ideally suitable" or fell in relaxation
rule of 'exceptional merit', then the Board of Directors should
have been sounded to act according to the dictates of law of
procedural fairness by calling other talented and ideally
suitable persons by public advertisement in order to give all
candidates who may wish to apply an opportunity of
consideration. The Board could have taken a decision to
advertise a single post of Senior Manager and invite fair
competition from all eligible candidates for the post. There
were other suitable options before the HSIIDC and the
Selection Committee to have deferred the entire selection
process qua one post of Senior manager (Estate) and to have
re-initiated it once again having discovered a jewel in the
crown to run their clubs. The 4th respondent would then have
been pitted against his peers coming forwarded had they known
the Corporation is looking for a suitable person to run their
Gymkhana Clubs in properties developed by them in Haryana.
It is often said it is not the decision but the decision making
process that it open to judicial review. The decision making
process in this case is seriously flawed to a point difficult to
maintain. The Court cannot turn a blind eye to a fraud
committed on public appointment by reason of sympathy or
compassion alone."
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -5-
8. Discussing accordingly, learned Single Bench concluded and quashed
the appointment of the appellant as well as decision leading to his appointment
with further declaration that the post of Senior Manager (Estate) held by the
appellant would be treated as vacant and would be re-advertised. At the same time,
the respondent-Corporation was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner
against the second advertised post of Deputy General Manager (Estate) for
appointment from the date, Divya Kamal was appointed with notional
consequential benefits. The judgment passed by the learned Single Bench has not
been challenged by the respondent-Corporation, however, the concerned
respondent i.e. the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
9. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia, would
submit that the learned Single Bench ought not have interfered with the
appointment of the appellant at a belated stage. Further, it was pointed out that
respondent no.1 had also been promoted later on as Deputy Manager (Joint
Venture) vide order dated 30.09.2011. He submitted that the Selection Committee
had taken a conscious decision to offer appointment to the appellant on the post of
Senior Manager (Estate) on the basis of his assessment and merit and the
concerned post of Deputy General Manager (Estate) was downgraded. Since the
appellant had worked for such a long period, his appointment ought to have been
saved.
10. Learned Senior counsel in his written submissions while relying upon
judgment of this Court in CWP No. 30035 of 2017 - Mukesh vs State of Haryana
and others, decided on 03.03.2020 pleaded that this Court has previously dealt
with cases wherein even if a litigant was found entitled for appointment over and
above an already working employee and acceptance of such a prayer would lead to
an ouster from service of another employee, who is already in service, it has held
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -6-
that such an ouster would be bad in law, for the reasons that such an employee is
not at fault and ought not to be punished for the wrong doing of the State. It is also
submitted that so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he was a fence sitter and
did not approach the Court within time and on both the counts, therefore, he has
prayed that the order passed by the learned Single Bench be set aside.
11. Per contra, counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has supported the
judgment and pointed out that a person who has been able to obtain employment
through a back door method, cannot claim equity as he has been unauthorisedly
appointed, his services cannot be allowed to continue.
12. We have carefully examined the facts of the case as have been culled
out hereinabove and also given our thoughtful consideration to the judgments cited
at bar.
13. From the perusal of the proceedings of the interview held on
15.01.2009, we find that the appellant has neither scored the highest marks in
interview nor scored overall second highest marks. The person, who scored the
highest marks, namely, Divya Kamal obtained 22 marks in interview and overall
scored 71 marks was selected. The writ petitioner was awarded 10 marks in the
interview but on the basis of his overall performance, he scored 61 marks. One
Sanjeev Moudgil scored 11 marks in interview and in written he scored 44 marks
and thus, he scored overall 55 marks. The writ petitioner was then second highest.
However, the Selection Committee did not recommend his name without giving
any reasons and has made certain observations after the tabulation of marks of all
the 23 candidates, who appeared in the interview. The same are as under:-
"The Selection Committee found only one candidate suitable
for appointment as Dy. General Manager (Estate) namely Sh.
Divya Kamal and accordingly recommends his name for
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -7-
appointment. However, the committee found one candidate viz.
Sh. Sanjeev Singh ideally suitable for appointment at the Sr.
Manager level rather than at the level of DGM keeping in view
his experience in managing the Gymkhana Club at Faridabad
which would come handy to HSIIDC as the Corporation is
executing various projects of integrated Townships (IMTs)
where clubs form an integral part of the infrastructure to be
developed. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the
Corporation may consider giving him a counter offer for the
post of Sr. Manager (Estate) and the post may suitably be
downgraded in case he accepts the offer."
14. The learned Single Bench has noticed the said aspect and this Court
too finds it absolutely amazing that the Selection Committee, which was required
to make selection for the post of Deputy General Manager has made
recommendations for appointment of a Senior Manager (Estate). It is also noticed
that there was no occasion for the Selection Committee to make mention of the
appellant's name and state that he is ideally suitable for appointment as Senior
Manager (Estate). Since they were not required to examine the candidates for the
post of Senior Manager, there was no occasion for them to have found who was
ideally suitable for the post of Senior Manager. Thus, the recommendations made
by the concerned Selection Committee goes beyond the scope of selection and
apparently results in choosing an individual for a particular post on whims and
fancies of the members of the Selection Committee as if they are the owners of a
private company or corporation.
15. The functions of HSIIDC are statutory in nature and no one can be
allowed to convert the rule of law to rule of thumb. The approach adopted by the
Selection Committee which included Y. S. Malik Chairman of FCI, Dheera
Khandelwal, MD/HFC, Professor Satish Kapoor, Former Head of Department,
University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh, and Rajeev Arora,
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -8-
MD/ HSIIDC, Member, is thus found to be an autocratic action, which is anathema
to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Law has to be applied equally to all who
are similarly situated. All the applicants, which included the writ petitioner as well
as the appellant, had singularly applied for the post of Deputy General Manager
(Estate). To choose one of them for another post of Senior Manager (Estate) was,
therefore, wholly uncalled for and unjustified. We agree with the observations
made by the learned Single Bench in this regard.
16. We also agree with the observations that a person, who has been
appointed on a post for which he has not even applied, cannot be said to have been
appointed in accordance with law, and therefore, amounts to committing fraud with
the public at large in relation to public appointment and no amount of sympathy or
compassion can be attached to such an action. A person who has been able to
obtain employment by a back door method ought to go out the same way. His
appointment, therefore, cannot be protected, even if he has worked for several
years. Since the appointment is illegal, the same cannot be saved. The entire
edifice of a public appointment rests on the principle of equality in employment in
terms of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. No one, whosoever be highly
placed may be, can tinker with such selection. Candidates, who appeared before
the interview authorities, come with full faith towards the selection committee with
a belief that the selection committee would select only the best amongst them.
Such selection committee, therefore, cannot be allowed to act in a manner which
results in wavering the public faith.
17. Having reached to the aforesaid conclusion that the findings arrived at
by the learned Single Bench do not warrant any interference, we feel that the order
passed by the learned Single Bench, however, needs to be modified so far as it
relates to directing the post of Senior Manager (Estate) to be advertised is
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
LPA No. 1893 of 2018 2024:PHHC:032266-DB -9-
concerned. It is noticed that the post of Senior Manager (Estate) occupied by the
appellant was downgraded post of Deputy General Manager (Estate) by the
Selection Committee, which could not have been done. Therefore, the post of
Deputy General Manager (Estate), which was existing at the time of selection, is
restored, while upholding the direction of the learned Single Bench regarding
quashing of the appointment of the appellant on the post of Senior Manager
(Estate). We direct the respondent-corporation to now consider the writ petitioner,
the second highest meritorious candidate, for appointment on the post of Deputy
General Manager (Estate) from the date the other candidate, namely, Divya Kamal,
was appointed. He would, of course, be granted notional benefits from the said
date. However, actual benefits would be granted to him from the date of the
passing of the judgment by the learned Single Bench. The other consequential
benefits shall follow in his favour.
18. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed.
19. All interim orders also stand vacated.
20. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
21. No costs.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
06.03.2024 (VIKAS SURI)
VS JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032266-DB
9 of 9
