Sucheta Arya vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 9857 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sucheta Arya vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063442-DB




214-2
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH
                                                    LPA
                                                    LPA-552-2019 (O&M)
                                                    in CWP
                                                       CWP-2525-2014
                                                    Date of Decision: 07.05.2024
SUCHETA ARYA                                                       .........Appellant
                                                    V/s.

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                        ........Respondents

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
               HON'BLE MRS.
                       MR JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present        Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate
               for the appellant (Petitioner in CWP--2525-2014).

               Mr.Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

               Mr. Nikhil Lather, Advocate for
               Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate,
               for respondent No.4 (Respondent
                                    Respondent No.4 in CWP
                                                       CWP-2525-2014).

         ***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,
                SHARMA J. (Oral)

CM-1300-LPA LPA-2019

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed and delay of 67 days in filing the present LPA is hereby condoned.

LPA-552-2019 2019 (O&M)

2. This LPA has been filed by the appellant, who is petitioner in

Writ Petition, against order dated 23.10.2018 passed in CWP-2525-2014

whereby while allowing the said Writ Petition, learned Single Bench has set

aside the selection of respondent No.4 and left it free to the official

respondents to make fresh selections selection in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the

appointment of respondent No.4 was set aside by this Court, the appellant

ought to have offered the said post as she was next in the merit. In support

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063442-DB LPA-552-2018 2018 (O&M)

of his submissions, learned learned counsel for the appel appellant relies on the judgment

passed in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association v. State of

Gujarat & Ors. ; [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 591.

4. We have considered the submissions.

5. Vide judgment of the even date iin LPA-1822-2018, preferred

by respondent No.4, No.4 in which order dated 23.10.2024 in CWP-2525-2014

has been challenged, challenged, we have affirmed the findings of the learned Single

Judge with regard to the wrongful method adopted for selection of

respondent No.4. Once this Court reached to a conclusion that the Selection

Committee had conducted a wrongful selection selection, and the selection itself has

been declared bad in law, no person can claim his or her right of

appointment in terms of the said selection process process.

6. In view of the findings of the learned Single Judge holding that

the selection suffers from arbitrariness, discrimination and patent illegality,

consequent appointments appointment would also have to go.

7. In the circumstances, this Court would not approve the

selection or placement of the appellant also and as the enti entire select list has

to be set aside, aside noo one can claim appointment against the said selection

process. The he State of Haryana had been left free to make fresh selection selections.

8. Even otherwise, we find that selection process was convened

for making contractual appointments. We have been time and again

directing the he State not to resort to contractual//ad hoc appointments and once

the posts are available for selection, Rules of selection must be followed

and regular appointments appointment must be made.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063442-DB LPA-552-2018 2018 (O&M)

9. In view of the aforesaid, this LPA stands dismissed. However,

the appellant would always be free to participate in the regular selection

process.

10. All pending applications filed in this case shall stand disposed

of accordingly.

                                                   [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
                                                             JUDGE


May 7, 2024                                             [SUDEEPTI SHARMA]
Ess Kay                                                      JUDGE

          Whether speaking / reasoned              :       Yes     /   No
          Whether Reportable                       :       Yes     /   No




                                          3 of 3