Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 4 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046046
CWP No.10545-2000(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10545-2000(O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.04.2025
Karan Singh
....Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 and 3
***
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 private
respondents and direction to respondents to appoint him on the post of
Swimmer-cum-Diver.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Swimmer-cum-Watchman on
12.09.1987. His appointment was not a regular appointment and he came to
be terminated on 01.06.1989. The respondent issued an advertisement dated
05.05.2000 inviting applications for the post of Swimmer-cum-Diver. He
participated in the selection process, however, could not be selected.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046046
3. Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate submits that as per Section 25H of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "ID Act"), the respondent was
bound to give him preference because he was retrenched under Section 25F
of the ID Act.
4. Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate submits that petitioner
participated in the selection process and he could not be selected. He cannot
challenge selection process after participating and being declared
unsuccessful.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that selection process
was initiated and completed in 2000. The private respondents joined
service. One of the selected candidate has passed away and as stated by
Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bedi, Advocate, others are likely to retire.
7. 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:
(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;
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046046
(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 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."
8. The private respondents joined service in 2000 and a period of
25 years has passed away. In view of aforesaid judgment, there seems no
reason to disturb their appointment.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046046
9. The petitioner participated in the selection process and it is
settled proposition of law that a candidate after participating in the selection
process cannot challenge advertisement or selection itself. He is claiming
preference in terms of Section 25H of the ID Act. The respondent had
invited applications by way of advertisement and proper procedure was
followed. The petitioner cannot claim preference over meritorious
candidates. There is nothing on record disclosing that unfair or unreasonable
means have been adopted or there was bias on the part of selection
committee.
10. A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and
Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 344 has held that candidates, having taken part in the selection process
without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been
declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the
same time. A candidate cannot allege that selection process was unfair or
there was some lacuna in the process just because selection process was not
palatable to a candidate.
11. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the instant
petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly hereby dismissed.
12. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
04.04.2025
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No
4 of 4
