Balbir Singh vs The State of Haryana and others

Augustine George Masih, J.

CM No. 8087 of 2012

CM is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 8088 of 2012

CM is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexure-P-23 to Annexure-P-30 are permitted to be taken on record.

CWP No. 17394 of 2008

Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the selection and appointment of private respondents No. 7 to 31 on the post of Mali, which the petitioner contends is not in accordance with law as the selection has been made by the Village Forest Committee (in short ''Committee'') without laying down any criteria and has only proceeded to assess the comparative merit of the candidates on the basis of interview, which cannot be said to be in accordance with law and therefore, deserves to be set aside. His further contention is that respondent No. 6, who had issued experience certificates to some of the private respondents, could not be served as the report was that such a person does not reside in the village. He on this basis contends that it should be presumed that the experience certificates issued to the private respondents by the Committee, are all fake certificates. Reliance has also been placed on the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, wherein in one of the communications Annexure-P-27, petitioner has been informed that the President of the Committee of village Lohani had refused to give in writing about the experience certificates issued to the candidates, but had told that the said certificates were issued by him. He on this basis contends that the selection of the private respondents is not in accordance with law.

His further contention is that the petitioner has been serving with the respondents for the last 25 years as Mali on daily wage basis and the benefit of Instructions dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure-P-3) has not been given to the petitioner, which provided that for regular recruitment, some weightage should be given to the persons who are engaged in the department. He accordingly contends that the selection and appointment of the private respondents is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand counsel for respondents contends that the appointment and selection of Mali, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, has been upheld by this Court in CWP No. 1868 of 2009 titled as Narpal Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 20.4.2012. It has further been contended that as per the criteria laid down by the selection committee, weightage was given to the candidates with experience and thereafter, individual assessments were made by the three members of the Selection Committee of the candidates, who were called for interview. After considering their performance in the interview, individual marks were given by each of the members of the Selection Committee and on average marks given by the three members committee, were thereafter taken as the marks obtained by the candidates and on that basis, the selection has been made. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the selection and appointment of the private respondents is in accordance with law.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the experience certificates issued to the private respondents by the Committee, being not genuine one, has already been considered and decided by this Court in Narpal Singh''s case (supra). The contention of the counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of Annexure-P-27, i.e. information supplied to him through Right to Information Act, would suggest that the experience certificates had been issued by the Committee, but the President has, although, admitted that the certificates were issued by him and he refused to give it in writing, which amounts to admission of fact that the certificates were infact duly issued by the Committee. The contention, thus, of the counsel for the petitioner that the same are fake, cannot be accepted.

As regards, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no criteria was framed by the Committee to assess the merit of the candidates, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the information, which has been placed on record, by the petitioner himself. Reference can be, thus, made to Annexures-P-28 and P-30, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the weightage to the experienced candidates had been given as it was one of the criteria for shortlisting the candidates and, therefore, the benefit of the Instructions issued by the Government dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure-P-3) has been rightly given to the petitioner and it is on that basis, the petitioner, on shortlisting, was called for interview. The criteria, which has been followed by the Committee, is apparent from the communication dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure-P-30), according to which, at the time of interview, marks have been given on the basis of assessment made by the President and two members of the Committee and the candidates were selected on the basis of average marks given by the three members committee. This itself shows that the criteria was on the basis of the performance of a candidate in the interview. It has also come on record that the candidates were asked questions with regard to various aspects of nursery techniques on raising of forestry species in the nursery, planning and other cultural operations which were required in the field of afforestation. This is apparent from the information dated 28.2.2011 (Annexure-P-28). The questions, thus, asked by the Committee, were relevant for assessing the comparative merit of the candidates, which related to the field in which the appointment of the candidates was sought to be made. Therefore, it cannot be said that any criteria was not formulated or was not made the basis for selection.

In the light of the above and in the light of the order dated 20.4.2012 passed in Narpal Singh''s case (supra), the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.