Rushtam Sharma vs State of Haryana

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Although the case has been listed for consideration of C.M. No. 2064 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondents not to relieve him or terminate his service from the post of Constable in the Haryana Police, with the consent of the parties, 1 proceed to''dispose of the main writ petition.

The facts of the case are that after subjecting him to medical examination and getting his character and antecedents verified, the competent authority appointed the petitioner as Constable in the Haryana Armed Police with effect from 9.8.1995. After a few months, his services were sought to be terminated in the purported compliance of the direction given by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 13942 of 1995 : 1998(2) SCT 129 (P&H) Balbir Singh and others v. Stale of Haryana and others, decided on 16.2.1996, but in the wake of the stay order passed by the Supreme Court on the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed against the High Court''s order, he was allowed to continue. According to the petitioner, he had not been appointed on the basis of selection made in 1995 and, therefore, his name cannot be included in the list of candidates whose services are liable to be terminated in the wake of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 15034 15036 of 1996 : 1996(1) SCT 420 (P&H) Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, vide which the order passed in Balbir Singh''s case (supra) has been upheld, but some directions have been given for making fresh selections.

The respondents have not controverted the petitioner''s assertion that he was not one of the candidates selected for appointment as Constable in 1995. How-ever, they have justified the action proposed to be taken in pursuance of the order dated 16.2.1996 passed in C.W.P. No. 13942 of 1995 Balbir Singh v. Stale of Haryana and others by asserting that this initial appointment was illegal. In the written statement filed on their behalf, it has been averred that the petitioner''s appointment was not preceded by any advertisement or selection. They have also averred that he was medically examined and his antecedents were got verified by the then Commandant, 2nd Battalion, H.A.P., Madhuban, Shri Rajeev Sagar Sharma, without making any selection. They have further averred that in view of the order dated 14.9.1995 passed in C. W.P. No. 15397 of 1993 : 1993(1) SCT 711 (P&H) Surinder Kumar and another v. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 5085 of 1994 Sanjayv. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 7179 of 1994 : 1999(4) SCT 654 (P&H) Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, and C. W.P. No. 12807 of 1994 - Virender Singh v. State of Haryana, the petitioner''s appointment is liable to be treated as void and, therefore, he cannot seek a direction for being allowed to continue in service.

The learned Deputy Advocate General candidly stated that the petitioner''s case is not covered by the order passed by this Court in Balbir Singh''s case (supra). He, however, tried to justify the action proposed to be taken by the respondents to terminate his services by arbitrariness, mala fides and extraneous consideration.

I have given serious thought to the submission of the learned Deputy Advocate General, but have not felt impressed. In my opinion, inclusion of the petitioner''s name in the list of Constables, whose services are to be terminated in compliance of the order passed by the High Court in Balbir Singh''s case (supra) and that of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 15034-15036 of 1996, is liable to be declared illegal and quashed because the admitted facts brought on the record of the case show that he was not among the candidates selected in July, 1995 and in view of this, I feel that ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents not to terminate the service of the petitioner on the premise that the selections made in 1995 have been quashed by the High Court in Balbir Singh''s case (supra) and that order has been substantially upheld by the Supreme Court.

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. However, it is made clear that this order shall not operate as a bar against the taking of action for terminating the petitioner''s services on the ground that his initial appointment was made in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to the State of Haryana) and the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But, at the same time, I direct that no order shall be passed against the petitioner without complying with the rules of natural justice. I also I deem it proper to direct that while taking action against the petitioner for termination of his services, the State Government must simultaneously initiate enquiry against the officer responsible for selecting and appointing the petitioner. The learned Deputy Advocate General submits that Shri Rajeev Sagar Sharma had got the petitioner medically examined and also got his antecedents verified. It would, therefore, be appropriate for the government to take action against the officer concerned.

It is further directed that final order shall not be passed against the petitioner till the government finalises enquiry against Shri Rajeev Sagar Sharma and the report of that enquiry is placed before the Court.

Petition disposed of.