Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Singh vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd & Ors on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
CWP-9716-2014 & CWP-10978-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
205 (02 cases) CWP-9716-2014
Reserved on : February 29, 2024
Pronounced on : March 12, 2024
NARINDER SINGH
...... Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD (PSPCL) & ORS .
...... Respondents
CWP-10978-2019
NARINDER SINGH
...... Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD (PSPCL) & ORS.
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.9716 of 2014.
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.10978 of 2019.
Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the respondents in CWP No.9716 of 2014.
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates
for the respondents in CWP No.10978 of 2019.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral)
1. This Judgement shall dispose of CWP No.9716 of 2014 & CWP
No.10978 of 2019 as common question of facts and law are involved therein for
adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP No.9716 of
2014.
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
2. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the order dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure P-8), vide which the petitioner
has been removed from service with further directions to the respondents to
consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechianical).
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition, as have been
pleaded therein, are that an Advertisement dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) was
issued by Respondent No.2, whereby 30 posts of Assistant Engineer (OT
Mechanical) were advertised and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner had applied
for the said post under reserved category of scheduled castes. As per criteria laid
down in the said advertisement, the selection to the post of Assistant Engineer
(OT Mechanical) was to be made on basis of the minimum qualifying marks
secured in the written test, which was to be held in two parts and that were 50 %
for general category and 40 % for reserved category, however, the appearing
candidates were required to qualify in both parts i..e Part-I and Part-II of the
written examination. The petitioner had secured 35 marks in Part -I and 16.25
marks in Part-II examination (total 51.25 marks). The result was declared by
Respondents, whereby 21 candidates were shown to have qualified the written test
and the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.19, having secured 51.25 marks.
Thereafter, the petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 12.06.2012
(Annexure P-4) and he joined the service of respondent department on 09.07.2012
and was imparted training for one year.
4. Thereafter, one unsuccessful candidate namely Abhinav Goyal, filed
a petition bearing CWP No.2233 of 2013 before this Court challenging the
selection , though the Petitioner was not arrayed as a party in the said petition, on
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
the ground that the answer key of Question Nos.56, 57 and 66 were wrong and the
said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P-5) on
the statement made on behalf of the respondents therein that the answer key has
been revised and accordingly it was directed to declare the result. In compliance
with the aforesaid orders, the result was revised and in the revised result, the
respondents reduced the marks of the petitioner in Part -II from 16.25 to 15 but
increased his marks in Part-I from 35 to 36.25, however, the total of his marks in
both the parts was 51.25 i.e. above the minimum qualifying marks, however, on
the basis of revised result, the services of the petitioner were terminated, vide
impugned order dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure P-8), on the ground that as the
petitioner has failed to secure minimum 16 marks, as required in Part-II, therefore,
his appointment stands cancelled and he has been removed from the services.
Hence, this petition.
5. Prayer made in the present petition filed by the petitioner- Narinder
Singh is for quashing the action of the respondents, whereby the annual increment
granted to him in the year 2013 has been withdrawn by the respondents, on
account of his removal from the service, vide order dated 13.05.2014 and further
prayed to stop consequent recovery made from the petitioner on account of said
withdrawal of annual increment, and to grant annual increments from the date,
when 1st annual increment granted to the petitioner was withdrawn, with all
consequential benefits arising therefrom.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner without going into
the roots of the cases submits that uploading of wrong answer key by the
respondents could not be attributed to be a wrong on the part of the petitioner, as
the error was committed by them and he has neither been found to have
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
committed any fraud or misrepresentation in fetching appointment, as he has been
appointed on the basis of the first merit list and there is no wrong on his part,
therefore, his ouster from service, particularly when he has completed more than
11 years of service, would be totally harsh and would not only affect his right of
livelihood but his whole family will be affected adversely and moreover, as on
date, the petitioner has become overage to apply for any other government job and
till date he has completed all of his training, as required under the relevant rules,
and there is no complaint of any kind, whatsoever, regarding work and conduct of
the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the very
action of the respondent corporation for removing the petitioner from the service
is consequential to the compliance of directions issued in CWP No.2233 of 2013,
since the said petition was disposed of on 30.07.2013, with the directions that the
respondents would declared the revised result expeditiously and as per the
Advertisement dated 16.11.2011 (Annexure P-1), the selected candidates were
required to qualify in both Part-I and Part-II of the written test, separately,
whereas the marks of the petitioner in the revised result were found to be reduced
due to revision in the answer key , therefore, the petitioner was not found to be a
eligible candidate securing minimum passing marks in both the examination i.e.
Part-I and Part-II and resultantly, he was removed from the service, vide
impugned order dated 13.05.2014 (Anneuxre P-8) and therefore, there is no
illegality in the action of respondents and the present writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant
Engineer (OT Mechanical) under the reserved category of scheduled castes, and
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
as per the criteria laid down in the Advertisement dated 16.11.2011, his selection
was made to the post of Assistant Engineer (OT Mechanical), as he had secured
35 marks in Part -I and 16.25 marks in Part-II examination, and he was issued
appointment letter dated 12.06.2012 (Annexure P-4) and he joined the service of
respondent department on the said post. Later on, one unsuccessful candidate
namely Abhinav Goyal, filed a petition bearing CWP No.2233 of 2013, before this
Court challenging appointment of selected candidates on the ground that the
answer key of Question Nos.56, 57 and 66 were wrong and the said writ petition
was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P-5). The said order
reads as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Shri Nehra states that the answer key has been revised keeping
in view some of the questions which were having incorrect answers
and matter thereafter has been sent to the Corporation for
reappraisal of the result.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the
instant petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as
such. The respondent / corporation is directed to declare the result
as expeditiously, as possible preferably within three weeks.
July 30, 2013 Sd/-
Mahesh Grover
Judge "
xxx xxx xxx xxx
10. The petitioner was not arrayed as party in the said petition. A bare
perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the writ petition was ordered to be
rendered infructuous, since the respondent corporation has made a statement
before the Court that "the answer key has been revised keeping in view some of
the questions which were having incorrect answers and matter thereafter has
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
been sent to the Corporation for reappraisal of the result" and on account of this
statement made on the part of the respondents, the respondent authority was
directed to declare revised result expeditiously, which means that the result was to
be declared in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent-corporation
and not in view of the claim of the petitioner made in CWP No.2233 of 2013.
11. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure P-8),
the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and he was removed from service.
Vide order dated 20.05.2014, the operation of the impugned order dated
13.05.2014 was stayed and the matter stands admitted on 07.09.2017.
12. The same issue qua ouster of the employee from the government
service, upon re-valuation of answer key and preparation of revised merit list in
furtherance thereto, has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case titled as 'Vikas Pratap Singh and others versus State of
Chhattisgarh and others', 2013 AIR (SCW) 4826 and the Hon'ble Apex Court,
has held that 'the error committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of
evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they
have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in
being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous
model answer key or the specious result contributed to them'. The relevant paras
of the said judgements are as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" 25. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the
respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts
could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been
found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being
appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the
erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their
ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from
this Court irrespective of their length of service.
26. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully
undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State
for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would
not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and
their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would
be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are
innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer
scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give
any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to
the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. "
xxx xxx xxx xxx
13. To the same effect is the Judgement dated 18.02.2021 passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Anmol Kumar Tiwari and others versus
State of Jharkhand and others', 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 1139, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the similar issue and referring to the
'Vikas Pratap Singh and others' case (Supra), has upheld the judgement of the
High Court, wherein directions were issued to reinstate the writ petitioners after
taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of select list, which was
prepared in an irregular manner, and it was also held that the writ petitioners were
not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of
the select list, and therefore, the SLP preferred against the Judgment of the High
Court was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant para of said
Judgement is as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" 9. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the
correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ
Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were
beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular
manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners
were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the
authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ
Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked
for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the Writ
Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without
affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A
similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh's case (supra), where
this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due
to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation
of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or
misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the
termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely
affect their careers. That the Appellants-therein had successfully
undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years
was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the
orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are
similarly situated to the Appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh's case
(supra), we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ
Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on
pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are
working at present. "
10. xxx xxx xxx.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgement of the High
Court is upheld and the Appeals are dismissed.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
14. Similar is the view/observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled
as 'Rajesh Kumar and others versus State of Bihar and others', 2013 AIR (SC)
2652 , wherein similar issue was considered and it has been observed that "the
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the
preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of
any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for
nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may
be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable
and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation' and it was held that 'in case
the writ petitioners also figure in the merit list after re-valuation of answer scripts,
their appointments shall relate back to the date when appellants were appointed
with continuity of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any back
wages or other incidental benefits. The relevant para of said Judgement is as
under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" 17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-
evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may
have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the
process but also to writ petitioners-respondents 6 to 18 in the matter
of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such
evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the appellants
should they be found to fall below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list.
Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he
contended that the appellants are not responsible for the error
committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer
scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were
guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would
have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their
ouster. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the
State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years
now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh
recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost
the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the
basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself
affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or
misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers
and lives. The experience gained by these appellants over the years
would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have
the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found
useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long
time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-
evaluation can determine the inter-se position of the writ petitioners
and the appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation
may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off
line.
18. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes
without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have
not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous
key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or
malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for
nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit
position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter
need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-
evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those
who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key
applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates
as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment
letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re- evaluation
and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their
inter se position on the merit list. "
xxx xxx xxx xxx
15. Apart from the above, the High Court of Rajasthan had an occasion
to consider the similar issue involving the same question of law and facts in case
titled as 'Shaym Kumar Sharma and others verus The State of Rajashtan and
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
others' in CWP No.225 of 2018 and connected cases, wherein the impugned
order terminating the services of the petitioners on account of revision of result
was challenged and the High Court while allowing the writ petitions, held that the
petitioners are entitled to continue in service with consequential benefits. The
relevant para of the said judgment is as under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
" 20. From the conspectus of the aforesaid judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the unexceptional legal position which emerges
is that if a person has been accorded appointment on the basis of
irregular select list without allegation of fraud or misrepresentation
by such person, his appointment should not ordinarily be interfered
with. Contention of the learned counsels for the respondents that the
petitions filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and other similarly
situated candidates whose roll numbers also figured in the result
declared on 06.02.2018 based on erroneous answer key dated
30.08.2017, came to be dismissed by this Court as also by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and hence, the petitioners also have no right to
continue, does not merit acceptance in view that Shri Ashok Kumar
Sharma and others similarly situated persons, undeniably, were
either not offered appointment or they did not join in pursuance of
appointment, if any, offered to them; whereas, all the petitioners
were appointed vide order dated 20.04.2018, joined in pursuance
thereof and are continuing in service for last more than three and
half years. "
xxx xxx xxx xxx
16. In view of the Judgements referred to above, it is a settled
proposition of law that even if a person has been accorded appointment on the
basis of irregular select list, which ultimately got revised on account of revision of
answer key perhaps without allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation on the
part of such innocent appointed person, his appointment should not ordinarily be
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
interfered with and he cannot be subjected to ouster from service without any
justifiable reason, which directly impinge economic security of the petitioner as
well as his dependants, therefore, the very action of the respondents to remove the
petitioner from service by cancelling the appointment, vide impugned order dated
13.05.2014 (Annexure P-8), cannot be held justified by any stretch of
imagination, since the committed error of re-valuation of the answer key and
preparation of revised list in furtherance thereto is on the part of the respondents,
which cannot be attributed to the petitioner at all, as there is no fraud or
misrepresentation on his part and he has completed more than 11 years of service
and has now become overage to fetch any other government job, therefore, the
impugned order dated 13.05.2014, passed by the respondent-authorities to ouster
the petitioner from the service is illegal and arbitrary and the same is hereby set
aside.
17. In view of the above, both the writ petitions i.e. CWP No.9716 of
2014 & CWP No.10978 of 2019 are hereby allowed and it is directed that the
petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service, with all consequential benefits
including the benefit of annual increment(s), since year, 2013. The amount
recovered from the petitioner, if any, shall be refunded to him, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the
petitioner shall be placed at bottom of the revised merit list.
18. Disposed of.
19. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
March 12, 2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
mkkoundal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038033
12 of 12
