Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dheeraj Singh Sihag vs The Hon'Ble Punjab And Haryana High ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
SUNIL
CWP No.7075 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
2024:PHHC:060346-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 7075 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.05.2024
DHEERAJSIHAG eae Petitioner(s)
Versus
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS
esse Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate
for petitioner.
3K 2 3 3
LISA GILL, J.
1. The question as sought to be raised in this writ petition stands
decided vide decision dated 21.03.2024, in CWP-27851-2023 (Rajender and
others vs. State of Haryana and another) and connected writ petitions. Rule
11(bb) of Haryana Judicial Services Rules, 2007 (for short Haryana Rules,
2007) had been challenged in said writ petitions which had been filed by
petitioners who were serving as Additional District Attorneys (for short ADA),
Deputy District Attorneys (for short DDA) and Public Prosecutors (for short
PP), challenging rejection of their candidature for vacancies in the cadre of
Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Services 2023-2024 on the ground of non-
fulfillment of criterion of conducting not less than 50 cases (other than bunch
cases) per year in the last preceding three years with the condition being of 40
cases per year for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Class
categories. Identical arguments as are sought to be raised in this writ petition
were raised in said writ petitions. Same were, however, negated vide decision
dated 21.03.2024.
2024.05.08 10:40
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
2. Learned counsel for petitioner reiterates that a person appointed as
ADA, DDA and PP does not have any control over the place where he would be
appointed and whether he would be assigned duty with a Court or not,
therefore, in this situation the condition as above has no nexus with the purpose
to be achieved and there is no intelligible differentia to justify or sustain this
condition. It leads to discrimination between members of same cadre itself.
Perusal of decision dated 21.03.2024 reveals that following arguments as are
reproduced as under had been raised on behalf of petitioners who were posted
as ADA, DDA and PP:-
"Arguments in the writ petitions filed by petitioners who are posted
as ADA, DDA and PP.
20. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that
impugned Rules serve as entry level barriers to petitioners who are
posted as ADA, DA/ PP. It is vehemently argued that the Rule has
two limbs, one of independent engagement in a case and conduct
of such case. While being posted as ADA, DA/PP, there cannot be
independent engagement of any of petitioners and there can be no
filing of a Power of Attorney on their behalf. Said petitioners, it is
further contended are completely dependent on the employer in so
far as their posting is concerned. In case, petitioners are not posted
where they are actively associated with Courts hearing, appearance
in the Court or exposure to Court working, same cannot be held to
their detriment to deprive them of the opportunity to try their luck
for selection to Superior Judiciary of Punjab and Haryana.
Respective Rules as above are thus claimed to be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
It is further submitted that the condition as above does not
have any nexus with the purpose to be achieved and there is no
intelligible differentia to justify or sustain this condition. Just
because a person has conducted more cases, cannot be said to have
more experience or be more capable than another who may not
have conducted the same number of cases. The objective is to get
the best talent for manning the posts in question. Therefore, the
formula of magical number of 50/40 cases is clearly defective.
Criterion of one hat fits all, it is contended is not applicable in the
given situation. It is submitted that ADA, DA/PP and Law Officers
form a separate class which calls for a separate classification and
criterion for them to ensure compliance of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The criterion has suitably been relaxed for
5024 05.08 10:40
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
3.
reserved candidates, therefore, similar relaxation should be made
available to petitioners. It is also urged by learned counsel for
petitioners that the tabulated form for the list of cases as attached
with the application form does not in effect reveal the competency
of a candidate and it does not indicate that the candidate is
conducting matters on regular basis. It also does not necessarily
show exposure of the candidate to Court work/trials etc. It has also
been argued that respective Rules in question in both the States in
fact unravel the relief which has been extended by Hon'ble
Supreme Court by way of its judgment in Deepak Aggarwal's case
(supra). In the alternate it is prayed that keeping in view the
peculiar circumstances where a particular ADA, DA, PP has no
control over his/her place of posting, condition of conduct of 50/40
cases per year should be relaxed."
Said argument was negated vide the detailed order dated
21.03.2024 which needs no reproduction. We do not find any ground
whatsoever to take a different view. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in
terms of decision dated 21.03.2024, in CWP-27851-2023 and connected writ
petitions.
01.05.2024
Sunil
2024.05.08 10:40
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
