Punjab-Haryana High Court
Udhey Singh vs B.B.M.B. And Others on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040357
CWP-11509-1999 1 2024:PHHC:040357
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11509-1999
Date of Decision:20.03.2024
UDHEY SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
B.B.M.B. AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate and
Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate
for the respondent-BBMB.
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.8 and 9.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of result
dated 24.02.1999 (Annexure P-10) and appointment letters issued to
private respondents No.5 to 11.
2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement No.1/1996 applied
for the post of Junior Draftman. The respondent by said advertisement
had invited applications for 7 posts. The said advertisement was modified
vide public notice dated 05.05.1998. In the modified advertisement, it
was provided that persons who have completed apprenticeship under
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and possess proficiency certificate would be
given preference over other candidates. The private respondents came to
be selected and petitioner could not cut the ice. He opted to file present
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040357
CWP-11509-1999 2 2024:PHHC:040357
petition before this Court assailing selection of other candidates.
3. The selection of private respondents was also challenged by
another candidate i.e. Rajiv Mohan by way of Civil Writ Petition
No.9658 of 1999 before this Court. The said petition has been dismissed
vide order dated 15.02.2018 passed by this Court. The relevant extracts of
order dated 15.02.2018 are reproduced as below:
"Crux of the matter in the present petition is whether
petitioner has any statutory right pursuant to Annexure P-6
for the purpose of claiming preference over respondent
Nos.3 to 5 only on the score that he has acquired apprentice
training prior to respondent Nos.3 to 5. Annexure P-6 is only
giving a preference that too by means of executive order. In
other words, whatever, the prescribed qualification for the
post of Junior Draftsman like matriculate or its equivalent
possesses recognized diploma/certificate in the
Draftsmanship is required to be taken into consideration
irrespective of acquisition of apprenticeship or not. In other
words, by means of an executive order official respondents
cannot impose any qualification contrary to rules unless and
until rules/regulations are amended in respect of Junior
Draftsman to the extent that Senior trained apprentices
would be given preference. Thus, petitioner has not made out
a right to claim any preference over and above respondent
Nos.3 to 5 only on the score that he had acquired
apprenticeship in the year 1983-84 whereas, respondent
Nos.3 to 5 partly acquired the apprenticeship in the year
1994. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case."
4. Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate claims that there was favoritism on
the part of Selection Committee. The candidates who were less
meritorious were selected and the petitioner was ignored.
5. Concededly, the selection process was completed in
February' 1999 and private respondents except one candidate who had
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040357
CWP-11509-1999 3 2024:PHHC:040357
died, are working with respondent. The petitioner is primarily assailing
appointment of selected candidates. The petitioner at present is more than
50 years old. A Constitution Bench of Sivanandan C.T. and others Vs.
High Court of Kerala and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 994 had
occasioned to consider validity of rules and appointment of Judicial
Officers. Though the Court held that the respondents has made
appointment in violation of law yet appointment of already selected
candidates was not set aside. The relevant extracts of the judgment read
as:
"58.The question which now arises before the Court is in
regard to the relief which can be granted to the petitioners.
The final list of successful candidates was issued on 6 March
2017. The candidates who have been selected have been
working as District and Sessions Judges for about six years.
In the meantime, all the petitioners who are before the Court
have not functioned in judicial office. At this lapse of time, it
may be difficult to direct either the unseating of the
candidates who have performed their duties. Unseating them
at this stage would be contrary to public interest since they
have gained experience as judicial officers in the service of
the State of Kerala. While the grievance of the petitioners is
that if the aggregate of marks in the written examination and
viva-voce were taken into account, they would rank higher
than three candidates who are respondents to these
proceedings, equally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that all
the selected candidates are otherwise qualified for judicial
office and have been working over a length of time.
Unseating them would, besides being harsh, result in a
situation where the higher judiciary would lose the services
of duly qualified candidates who have gained experience
over the last six years in the post of District Judge.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040357
CWP-11509-1999 4 2024:PHHC:040357
59.For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion
that it would not be possible to direct the induction of the
petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service at the present
stage. Many of the petitioners would have since joined the
Bar and would be in active practice. It needs to be clarified
that their having failed to gain selection to the Higher
Judicial Service in the process which was initiated on 30
September 2015, is not a reflection either on their merits or
ability and shall not come in the way of their being
considered for any other office, judicial or otherwise, in the
future."
6. Considering the fact that a Coordinate Bench of this Court
has dismissed an identical petition assailing selection of private
respondents herein; the private respondents uninterruptedly are working
for more than 2 decades and the petitioner at present is more than 50
years old, this Court does not find it appropriate to disturb appointment of
private respondents.
7. Dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
20.03.2024
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
