Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123352
CWP-11864-2021 (O&M) and
other connected matters
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(236) CWP-11864-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.09.2024
Jaspreet Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
(236/2) CWP-7037-2021 (O&M)
Jaspreet Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
(236/3) CWP-28561-2019 (O&M)
Savi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-11864-2021 and CWP-7037-2021.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-28561-2019.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
***
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 19:39:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123352
CWP-11864-2021 (O&M) and
other connected matters
2
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, three writ petitions, the details of which
have been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions
involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP
No. 11864 of 2021.
3. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide
order dated 09.06.2021 (Annexure P-19) and the said order is totally arbitrary
and illegal, hence, the same may kindly be set-aside.
4. The facts are that the petitioner competed for the post of Art and
Craft Teacher as advertised on 07.01.2016. The petitioner's merit was
ascertained as 53.4128 and it is the assertion of the petitioner that the same
was enhanced to 69.9512 and on the basis of the merit of 69.9512, the
petitioner was appointed against one of the advertised post of Art and Craft
Teacher and petitioner joined as such on 30.12.2016. The petitioner also
completed the period of probation.
5. One, Smt. Savi, filed CWP No. 28561 of 2019, wherein, she
challenged the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she had a
better merit than the petitioner and was entitled to be appointed and in the
writ petition, she had alleged that the actual merit of the petitioner is 53.4128
and not 69.9512, hence, as Smt. Savi had a better merit, she should have been
given appointment as compared to the petitioner.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123352
CWP-11864-2021 (O&M) and
other connected matters
6. After the filing of the writ petition by Smt. Savi being CWP No.
28561 of 2019, the respondents conducted an enquiry into the issue and
ultimately, it was found that the actual merit of the petitioner was 53.4128
and not 69.9512, which was wrongly mentioned to get him appointed, hence,
petitioner should be ousted from service after due process and Smt. Savi be
appointed.
7. After the said preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was charge-
sheeted, which charge-sheet was challenged by the petitioner but as no
interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner, the respondents
conducted an enquiry and in the departmental enquiry it was found that the
actual merit of the petitioner was 53.4128 and not 69.9512 hence, as the
merit of candidate Smt. Savi was more than that of the petitioner, the services
of the petitioner were liable to be terminated by the respondents and
ultimately, after following due process, the impugned order was passed
terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 09.06.2021
(Annexure P-19).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the petitioner
was appointed and he was also confirmed, the termination of the services
cannot take place, hence, petitioner should have been allowed to continue in
service.
9. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein, the respondents have stated that the merit of the petitioner was
manipulated from 53.4128 to 69.9512, which fact has already come into
light after the preliminary enquiry as well as the departmental enquiry, hence,
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123352
CWP-11864-2021 (O&M) and
other connected matters
the petitioner was wrongly appointed at the cost of the candidate Smt. Savi,
hence, his services have been terminated so as to rightfully offer appointment
to Smt. Savi on the post of Art and Craft Teacher.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
11. In the present case, the prime contention of the respondents is
that the merit of the petitioner was manipulated. The merit of the petitioner
was 53.4128 and with the said merit, the petitioner could not have been
selected against the post for which he competed and it is only, by the
manipulated merit of 69.9512, that the petitioner got selected. Once, the said
charge has already been proved in the departmental enquiry, this Court
cannot go behind the enquiry proceedings so as to say that the selection of
the petitioner was bona fide. Once, the merit has been manipulated, the
appointment of the petitioner cannot be bona fide so as to allow the petitioner
to have the benefit of the said manipulated merit.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the
petitioner was appointed and has already been allowed to complete the
probation, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal Nos. 5318-5319 of 2013 titled as Vikas Pratap Singh
and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, decided on 09.07.2013,
the petitioner is entitled to continue in service.
13. Qua the above contention, it could be observed that the facts and
circumstances of the present case are entirely different than that of Vikas
Pratap Singh and others (supra). Once, in the present case, it has come to
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123352
CWP-11864-2021 (O&M) and
other connected matters
light that the merit of the petitioner has been manipulated so as to grant him
appointment by giving him more marks, the same cannot be sustained and the
judgment in Vikas Pratap Singh and others (supra) will not come to the
rescue of the petitioner herein.
14. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order terminating the
services of the petitioner, Jaspreet Singh needs no interference by this Court
and the present petitions being CWP-11864-2021 and CWP-7037-2021 are
dismissed.
15. As far as CWP No. 28561 of 2019 is concerned, once the
respondents themselves have terminated the services of the selected
candidate on the ground that he was not eligible keeping in view his original
merit and the claim of the petitioner is that she has a better claim to be
appointed as Art and Craft Teacher, the respondents are directed to consider
the claim of the petitioner for appointment as an Art and Craft Teacher
against the post vacated by Jaspreet Singh.
16. Let the consideration with regard to the grant of appointment to
the petitioner in case she is eligible in all respects be finalized and in case, it
is found that the petitioner is to be granted appointment, appropriate benefit
be given. In case, the petitioner Smt. Savi is given the benefit, the same will
relate back to the date when Jaspreet Singh was appointed though notionally
upto the date of filing of the petition i.e. 2019 and thereafter, even the arrears
of salary will be admissible to the petitioner-Savi in case she is found entitled
for appointment.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123352
CWP-11864-2021 (O&M) and
other connected matters
17. Petition being CWP No. 28561 of 2019 is disposed of in above
terms.
18. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
19. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
September 09, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
6 of 6
