Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 September, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on 10.09.2024
Pronounced on:20.09.2024
1. LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
GURINDER SINGH AND ORS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
2. LPA-1251-2023 (O & M)
BAL KRISHAN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr.Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate with
Mr. Nishant Sindhu, Advocate for the appellant(s).
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. Since both the petitions i.e. CWP-2366-2017 and CWP-7884-
2017 are decided by the learned Single Judge vide one common judgment
dated 19.04.2023, therefore, this Court would decide both the appeals i.e.
LPA-1110-2023 and LPA-1251-2023 vide one common judgment.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -2-
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the judgment dated
19.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions
bearing CWP-7884-2017 and CWP-2366-2017 filed by the petitioner(s)
were dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that vide advertisement dated
10.09.2016, respondent No.2 (Director Land Records, Punjab) invited online
applications for direct recruitment to fill up 1227 posts of Revenue Patwari
and 857 posts of Canal Patwari. The appellants participated in the selection
process and qualified the written test. Thereafter, respondent No.2 short-
listed the candidates for appointment. The grievance of the
appellants/petitioners in the writ petitions were that despite the higher merit,
the names of the appellants/petitioners were put in the waiting list for the
post of Revenue Patwari and respondents No.3 to 8, who secured less marks
were given appointments.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the
appellants/petitioners. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced
hereunder:-
"A common recruitment notice was issued on
10.09.2016 while inviting online applications for
direct recruitment to fill up 1227 posts of Revenue
Patwari and 857 posts of Canal Patwari. As per
the procedure laid down in the recruitment notice,
a common written test was held. After declaration
of the result, counselling schedule was published
in order to check the correctness of documents of
the candidates. The petitioners herein are claiming
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -3-
reservation under Ex-servicemen General
Category. As per the public notice dated
10.12.2016, Ex-servicemen General Category
candidates were called for counselling on
12.12.2016. All the candidates, who had cleared
the written examination were entitled to
participate in the counselling. On 12.12.2016,
another public notice was issued while granting
second chance to attend the counselling on
13.12.2016. On 13.12.2016, another public notice
was issued giving another opportunity to the ex-
servicemen, who had already submitted their
documents to report for counselling on 14.12.2016
at 10.00 a.m.
3. The petitioners did not attend the
counselling either on 12.12.2016, 13.12.2016, and
14.12.2016. Another public notice was issued on
17.12.2016 to all the candidates belonging to Ex-
servicemen General Category, who could not
attend the counselling previously. This was the
final opportunity.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they
are more meritorious than the selected candidates
in the Ex-servicemen General Category, hence
entitled to appointment in preference to the private
respondents.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -4-
5. On the other hand, it is the stand of the State
that on 12.12.2016, 13.12.2016 and 14.12.2016,
the counselling was held and the select list was
prepared. On 17.12.2016, only vacant posts were
sought to be filled up by giving another
opportunity, though not required. It is submitted
that on conclusion of the counselling on
14.12.2016, the select list was prepared and the
private respondents were selected strictly in
accordance with the marks obtained by them in the
written examination.
6. This Court has considered the submissions
and analyzed the arguments of the learned
counsels representing the parties.
7. The question is "Whether the petitioners,
who admittedly did not attend the counselling on
12.12.2016, 13.12.2016 and 14.12.2016 should be
given preference over the private respondents?"
8. Once, it is not in dispute that the petitioners
failed to attend the counselling, though given two
opportunities, they cannot be given any preference
over and above the private respondents, who
attended the counselling.
9. Hence, no ground to issue the writ as prayed
for is made out.
10. Dismissed"
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -5-
SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants
being more meritorious are ignored and the appointment letters were given
to the private respondents, who have secured less marks than the appellants.
They further contended that the respondent No.2 issued a public notice dated
17.12.2016 by giving one final opportunity to the Ex-Servicemen General
(self) category and Ex-Servicemen BC (self) category, who could not attend
the counselling, to report on 19.12.2016, 21.12.2016 and 22.12.2016 for
counselling. In view of the public notice dated 17.12.2016, the
appellants/petitioners appeared to attend the counselling but still candidates
lower in merit than the appellants were given appointment letters and the
appellants/petitioners were put in the waiting list.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel argued on the lines of
judgment passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellants
did not attend counselling at first point of time, therefore, the appointment
letters were not issued to them. He further contended that public notice
dated 17.12.2016 was issued on the apprehension that some of the
candidates leaving jobs after joining or failed to join. Therefore, the public
notice dated 17.12.2016 was issued to prepare the waiting list and the
appellants/petitioners were to be considered in waiting list.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of the instant appeals.
8. The undisputed fact is that the combined merit list as well as
category wise merit list was uploaded on the website on 29.11.2016.
Thereafter counselling for checking of documents for Ex-Servicemen
general category was conducted. All the candidates, who had cleared the
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -6-
written examination, were entitled to participate in the counselling. As per
the public notice dated 10.12.2016 Ex-Servicemen general category
candidates were called for counselling on 12.12.2016. On 12.12.2016
another public notice was issued while granting second chance to attend the
counselling on 13.12.2016. On 13.12.2016, another public notice was issued
giving another opportunity to the Ex-Servicemen general category
candidates, who appeared for counselling but could not submit their
documents were asked to report on 14.12.2016. As per the reply, the
candidates of this category, who appeared in each counselling were
shortlisted in order of marks secured in written examination and were
recommended for enlisting as Patwari candidates. Further the reply shows
that the recruitment of Ex-Servicemen general category was completed after
shortlisting and recommending candidates for all posts of this category
during these counselling held on 12.12.2016, 13.12.2016 and 14.12.2016.
Therefore, there was no requirement of another public notice dated
17.12.2016. The undisputed fact is that the petitioners/appellants are more
meritorious than the private respondents. Admittedly the appellants did not
appear for counselling held on 12.12.2016, 13.12.2016 and 14.12.2016,
which were the dates given by respondent No.2 as per the advertisement.
9. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is affirmed.
10. Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed.
11. Since, the grievance of the appellants is regarding the issuance
of public notice dated 17.12.2016 vide which the candidates belonging to
Ex-Serviceman-General (Self) category and Ex-serviceman-BC (self)
category were given final opportunity to report to the Director Land Records
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -7-
for counselling as they earlier failed to appear, therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that justice demands that grievance regarding the issuance of public
notice dated 17.12.2016 also to be decided on merits.
12. Vide public notice dated 17.12.2016 final opportunity to report
Director, Land Record, Punjab (respondent No.2) on 11.12.2016, 21.12.2016
and 22.12.2016 for counselling, was given to all the candidates belonging to
the Ex-Servicemen General (self) category and Ex-Servicemen BC (self)
category. The same is reproduced hereunder:-
" Dated 17.12.2016
PUBLIC NOTICE
All Candidates belonging to Exserviceman-General (Self)
category and Exserviceman-BC (Self) Category who have
not been able to come for counselling are given a final
opportunity to report to Director Land Records on
19.12.2016, 21.12.2016 & 22.12.2016 at 10.00 am to
11.00 Am for counselling.
Director Land Records
Punjab."
13. The reasoning given by respondent No.2 in the reply dated
14.05.2024 for issuance of public notice is that public notice dated
17.12.2016 was issued on the presumption that some candidates may leave
the job after joining or fail to join the job for various reasons. Therefore, the
public notice dated 17.12.2016 was published to call the candidates to
supply them waiting list letter so that after preparing the final waiting list,
these candidates could be appointed in case of any vacancy due to the non-
joining or leaving of the job of the selected candidates. Whereas a perusal of
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126396-DB
LPA-1110-2023 (O & M)
LPA-1251-2023 (O & M) -8-
the public notice as reproduced above does not mention anywhere that this
public notice is for the preparation of the waiting list of the candidates. This
reasoning given by the respondent No.2 (Director Land Record, Punjab) is
not acceptable to this Court rather by issuing the public notice, large number
of candidates have been misled.
14. This conduct of respondent No.2 (Director, Land Record,
Punjab) in the recruitment process is not appreciable. By issuing such kind
of public notice, respondent No.2 invited unnecessary litigation, which
further led to increase number of cases in the Court and the pendency as
well. Since because of this public notice wherein there was no mention with
regard to the aspect that this public notice is for the waiting list candidates,
which stand is now taken in the reply, respondent No.2 is responsible for
harassment of the candidates to approach the Courts.
15. Therefore, in view of the above, respondent No.2 (Director
Land Record, Punjab) is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each
of the appellants/petitioners in both the appeals, since they have forced the
candidates to approach the Court and the candidates had to bear the
fees/expenses of the Advocates which were engaged for the said litigation.
16. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
20.09.2024
A.Kaundal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
