Virender Singh Yadav Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127474
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-29-2014
AppellantVirender Singh Yadav
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana, at chandigarh letters patent appeal no.151 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 29.1.2014 virender singh yadav ..appellant versus state of haryana and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jasbir singh. hon'ble mr.justice harinder singh sidhu. present: mr.sanjay mittal, advocate for the appellant. jasbir singh, judge (oral) civil misc. no.400-lpa of 2014 after hearing counsel for the appellant, this application is allowed. delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. letters patent appeal no.151 of 2014 appellant filed civil writ petition no.18355 of 2013 to challenge appointment of respondents no.4 to 6 vide order dated 7.5.2012 against the posts of assistant on transfer basis. interview was the only criteria to select the candidates. it was stated by the appellant that he was a meritorious candidate and his claim was wrongly rejected. no official, who sit in the interview committee, was impleaded as a party to allege malafide against any of the officers.the learned single judge, on analyzing comparative qualifications of the appellant and respondents no.4 to 6, rightly came to bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.151 of 2014 (o&m) 2 a conclusion that the selected candidates were not having any disqualification and their record was also good. it was observed as under:- “the petitioner was called by the commission for interview vide letter mark “a”. in which he has been described correctly as translator. the petitioner's application was forwarded through proper channel as translator. merely because the word “examiner”. has been used in the impugned rejection order (p-11) that would not give rise to a suspicion that he was rejected on a mistake of fact. harminder singh- respondent too was an examiner. the use of the word “examiner”. would not make any material difference in the selection process by interview where many factors would have come into play in determining inter-se merit. the argument, therefore, merits rejection. the next question also should not detain this court for long since appointment by transfer or deputation to foreign service or cadre is not a matter of right and the question of seniority would not arise. when appointment and promotion are involved in combination can seniority step in. transfer is a well known method of recruitment which does not comprehend promotion. therefore, insistence on rule of seniority or that the selected candidates are junior to the petitioner in one or the other sessions division would not come to the petitioner's rescue. the selection cannot be dubbed as unfair because of bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.151 of 2014 (o&m) 3 it. besides, the petitioner has no statutory right to appointment as assistant under the service rules governing his service. it is not a case, to repeat, of promotion where seniority may be relevant and that too different for selection and non-selection posts. the state commission remains within its right to choose from a pool of candidates who have applied and face interview, the ones it thinks best-in its subjective satisfaction, would serve its establishment and administration of the institution to its best advantage. they are the best judges of the needs of their working and to pick from those who according to them fit the bill.”. it was rightly noticed that seniority was not the only criteria to select the candidates against the post of assistant. entire record of the candidates was perused and thereafter respondents no.4 to 6 were appointed against the post of assistant on transfer basis. it was rightly said that after having participated in the process of selection, it is not open to the appellant to turn around and say that the process was bad. dismissed. (jasbir singh) judge (harinder singh sidhu) judge january 29, 2014 “dk”. bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No.151 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.1.2014 Virender Singh Yadav ..Appellant Versus State of Haryana and Others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh.

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu.

Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Civil Misc.

No.400-LPA of 2014 After hearing counsel for the appellant, this application is allowed.

Delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.

Letters Patent Appeal No.151 of 2014 Appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.18355 of 2013 to challenge appointment of respondents No.4 to 6 vide order dated 7.5.2012 against the posts of Assistant on transfer basis.

Interview was the only criteria to select the candidates.

It was stated by the appellant that he was a meritorious candidate and his claim was wrongly rejected.

No official, who sit in the Interview Committee, was impleaded as a party to allege malafide against any of the officeRs.The learned Single Judge, on analyzing comparative qualifications of the appellant and respondents No.4 to 6, rightly came to Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.151 of 2014 (O&M) 2 a conclusion that the selected candidates were not having any disqualification and their record was also good.

It was observed as under:- “The petitioner was called by the Commission for interview vide letter Mark “A”.

in which he has been described correctly as Translator.

The petitioner's application was forwarded through proper channel as Translator.

Merely because the word “Examiner”.

has been used in the impugned rejection order (P-11) that would not give rise to a suspicion that he was rejected on a mistake of fact.

Harminder Singh- respondent too was an Examiner.

The use of the word “Examiner”.

would not make any material difference in the selection process by interview where many factors would have come into play in determining inter-se merit.

The argument, therefore, merits rejection.

The next question also should not detain this Court for long since appointment by transfer or deputation to foreign service or cadre is not a matter of right and the question of seniority would not arise.

When appointment and promotion are involved in combination can seniority step in.

Transfer is a well known method of recruitment which does not comprehend promotion.

Therefore, insistence on rule of seniority or that the selected candidates are junior to the petitioner in one or the other sessions division would not come to the petitioner's rescue.

The selection cannot be dubbed as unfair because of Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.151 of 2014 (O&M) 3 it.

Besides, the petitioner has no statutory right to appointment as Assistant under the Service Rules governing his service.

It is not a case, to repeat, of promotion where seniority may be relevant and that too different for selection and non-selection posts.

The State Commission remains within its right to choose from a pool of candidates who have applied and face interview, the ones it thinks best-in its subjective satisfaction, would serve its establishment and administration of the Institution to its best advantage.

They are the best judges of the needs of their working and to pick from those who according to them fit the bill.”

.

It was rightly noticed that seniority was not the only criteria to select the candidates against the post of Assistant.

Entire record of the candidates was perused and thereafter respondents No.4 to 6 were appointed against the post of Assistant on transfer basis.

It was rightly said that after having participated in the process of selection, it is not open to the appellant to turn around and say that the process was bad.

Dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge January 29, 2014 “DK”.

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 13:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document