Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127058
CWP-233-1999 and other
connected matters 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
206 +207+208
CWP-233-1999
Date of Decision : 25.09.2024
BALJINDER SINGH .... PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS .... RESPONDENTS
CWP-240-1999
BIKRAMJIT SINGH .... PETITIONER
V/S
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS .... RESPONDENTS
CWP-241-1999
DEVINDER SINGH .... PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS .... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : None for the petitioner (s).
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, CWP-233-1999, CWP-240-1999 and
CWP-241-1999 are disposed of as issues involved and prayer sought in
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127058
CWP-233-1999 and other
connected matters 2
all the petitions are common. For the sake of convenience and with the
consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-233-1999.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of
appointment of respondents No.5 and 6 as Assistant Sub Inspectors. He is
further seeking direction to official respondents to appoint them as
Assistant Sub Inspector.
3. The 1st prayer of the petitioner has already been rejected vide
order dated 11.01.1999 passed by this Court. The said order is reproduced
as below:
"The petitioner has prayed for quashing
appointments of the non-official respondents as
Assistant Sub Inspectors and also for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official
respondents to appoint him as Assistant Sub Inspector.
In so far as the second prayer of the petitioner
is concerned, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed
in view of the dismissal of Civil Writ Petition No. 3919
of 1998 filed by him jointly with 12 others. In that case
also the petitioners had prayed for issuance of a
mandamus directing the respondents to appoint them
as Assistant Sub Inspectors and after considering the
various contentions urged on their behalf, the Court
had rejected their plea. Therefore, it must be held that
the petitioner's claim for issuance of a direction to the
official respondents to appoint him as Assistant Sub
Inspector is barred by res judicata.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127058
CWP-233-1999 and other
connected matters 3
However, the plea of the petitioner with regard
to invalidation of the appointments of the non-official
respondents merits further consideration in view of the
order dated September 10, 1998 passed in C.W.P. No.
3919 of 1998.
The writ petition is admitted in so far as the
challenge to the appointments of the non-official
respondents is concerned.
A copy of this order be served on the official
respondents as well as the private respondents along
with the notices."
4. The petitioner is assailing appointment of private
respondents who were appointed in 1993 i.e. more than three decades
back. Both of them might have attained the age of superannuation or
would be on the verge of superannuation.
5. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab confirms that appointment of
private respondents was never set aside and they were never terminated
by department.
6. A five Judge bench of 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 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:
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127058
CWP-233-1999 and other
connected matters 4
(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. Unseating them at this stage
would be contrary to public interest. To induct the
petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:127058
CWP-233-1999 and other
connected matters 5
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."
7. In the wake of above-cited judgment of Supreme Court and
considering the fact that private respondents were appointed in 1993, this
Court does not find it appropriate to set aside their selection.
8. In the backdrop, the instant petitions are hereby dismissed.
25.09.2024 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
anju JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
