Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147702
CWP No.17409 of 2012(O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17409 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.11.2024
Harinder Singh
....Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of selection of respondent
No. 3 on the post of Constable and further direction to official respondents
to issue him appointment letter.
2. The petitioner is a Matriculate. He has participated in Free
Style 96 Kg Wrestling competitions. The respondents in 2011 invited
applications for recruitment of Constables. The advertised posts were meant
for sports persons. There were 187 posts out of which 172 were meant for
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147702
male and 15 for female candidates. 13 posts were earmarked for Wrestling
sports.
3. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement applied for the post
under Free Style Wrestling category. As per selection process, the marks
were awarded qua sports achievements, performance during trials and
interview. He secured 23 marks and respondent No. 3 secured 38 marks.
He was at Sr. No. 17 and respondent No. 3 was at Sr. No. 16. Respondent
No. 3 secured substantially higher marks than petitioner, however, he was
not having requisite height. In the advertisement, there was provision
permitting the respondents to give relaxation with respect to height. The
respondents declared selection list of nine candidates out of 13 advertised
posts. Neither name of petitioner nor respondent No. 3 figured in the
selection list. The official respondents granted height relaxation to
respondent No. 3 and he came to be selected. The petitioner is feeling
aggrieved from the selection of respondent No. 3.
4. Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate submits that respondent No. 3 was not
possessing requisite height, thus, he was disqualified for the post. The
respondents have wrongly granted him height relaxation. The petitioner has
secured lesser marks than respondent No. 3, however, was possessing
requisite height, thus, he was eligible for the post.
5. Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that there
were 13 posts which were earmarked for Wrestling sport. The petitioner
secured substantially lesser marks than respondent No. 3 which gave
impetus to authorities to grant height relaxation to respondent No. 3. The
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147702
authorities were quite competent, as per advertisement, to grant height
relaxation.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with
their able assistance.
7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that advertisement in
question was issued in 2011 and selection process completed in 2012. As
confirmed by Mr. Aman Dhir, respondent No. 3 at present is working with
Police Department as Assistant Sub-Inspector meaning thereby he has been
granted two promotions i.e. Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector.
The petitioner is assailing appointment of respondent No. 3 on the ground
that respondent No. 3 was ineligible on account of lesser height than the
prescribed height.
8. From the perusal of advertisement, it is evident that authorities
were competent to grant height relaxation. There is neither pleading nor
argument to the effect that there was mala fide on the part of authorities in
making the selection of respondent No. 3 by granting height relaxation or
there was no provision to grant height relaxation. The authorities were
competent to grant height relaxation and exercising vested power, they have
granted height relaxation. The petitioner secured 23 marks whereas
respondent No. 3 secured 38 marks which shows that respondent No. 3 was
more meritorious than petitioner.
9. A five Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Sivanandan C.T.
and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
994 though held that appointment of Judicial Officer by Kerala High Court
was bad in law, however, did not disturb appointment on the ground that
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147702
already appointed officers have already served for nearly six years and
gained experience. It would deprive the State and its citizens of the benefit
of experienced judicial officers. The relevant extracts of the judgment read
as:
"60. The following are our conclusions in view of the above
discussions:
(i) The principles of good administration require that the
decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of
consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid
being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14;
(ii) An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement
based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate
expectation has to establish the following : (i) the
legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of
the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14;
(iii) A public authority must objectively demonstrate by
placing relevant material before the court that its
decision was in the public interest to frustrate a claim of
legitimate expectation;
(iv) The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a
minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary
to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules.
(v) The High Court's decision to apply the minimum cut
off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive
legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
(vi) In terms of relief, we hold that it would be contrary to
public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners
into the Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of more
than six years. Candidates who have been selected nearly
six years ago cannot be unseated. They were qualified
and have been serving the district judiciary of the state.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:147702
Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public
interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in
new candidates in preference to those who are holding
judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state
and its citizens of the benefit of these experienced judicial
officers at a senior position would not be in public
interest."
10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that instant petition deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed.
11. The petitioner at last has pleaded that all the posts meant for
Wrestling sports were not filled up, thus, he may be considered.
12. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab is disputing the factual position.
13. Be that as it may, the authorities are directed to consider claim
of the petitioner, if any post meant for Wrestling sports, which was
advertised in 2011, is still lying vacant.
14. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
13.11.2024
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
5 of 5
