Vijender Kumar And Another vs H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

A recruitment process undertaken by the respondents in the year 2001 for filling in posts of Physical Education Teachers (PET) was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that instead of making State-wise merit list, the respondents had resorted to preparing district-wise merit and made recruitment on that basis. The petitioners remained unsuccessful in their challenge before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal). Their O.A. No. 2128 of 2002 was dismissed on 12.01.2007. Hence, they have come up in the instant writ petition.

On 15.03.2001, the respondents advertised various posts, including 239 posts of PET. Foot note No. 2 of the advertisement mentioned that post of PET was a district cadre post. Taking into consideration a large number of applicants for these posts, the respondents decided to screen the candidates for personal interview. This decision was as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The candidates declared successful in the written screening test were called for the ground test, that was just of physical standard. 85 marks were prescribed for written screening test and 15 marks for the viva-voce. Petitioners applied for the posts as general (unreserved) category candidates. They qualified the written screening and the physical test. They were short-listed for personal interview. Call letters were issued to the petitioners alongwith district-wise breakup of posts. The call letters also contained option of districts to be exercised and filled in by the candidates for marking their choices accordingly. The petitioners opted for district Bilaspur against 10 posts of general (unreserved) category in the district. Merit list was prepared by the respondents. The names of the petitioners did not figure in the merit list. It is in the aforesaid background that they approached the learned Tribunal challenging the recruitment process. Remaining unsuccessful before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

Gist of the grievance raised by the petitioners is that the respondents were required to prepare State-wise merit list for the purpose of selecting candidates to the posts of PET, whereas they had resorted to making recruitments on the basis of merit list prepared district-wise. During the course of hearing, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon various judgments in support of her contention that the petitioners had a right to challenge the selection process even after participating in the same. That the respondents had changed the rules of game in the middle of selection process. The course adopted by the respondents was impermissible.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that recruitment exercise for filling up of 239 posts of Physical Education Teachers (PET) was undertaken vide advertisement dated 15.03.2001. The selection and consequential appointments against these posts were made in the year 2001. The selected candidates were not impleaded as parties by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal. Many of such selected candidates though are parties to the instant writ petition. Admittedly, the posts of PET (Class-III) belong to district cadre. The respondents in their affidavit have stated that the petitioners had secured lesser marks than all the selected candidates for 11 districts under general (un-reserved) category. We extract hereinafter relevant portion from the affidavit filed by respondent No.1 :-

“10. That the petitioner No. 1 scored 54 (51+3) marks in total and petitioner No. 2 obtained 62 (60+2) marks whereas the last recommended candidate in General (UR) category for Bilaspur District has scored 64 marks.

That as per merit list of all 11 Districts, no candidate who has scored marks less than 64 in General (UR) category on the basis of merit has been recommended by the Commission. (The copy of merit list of 11 Districts is attached as Annexure A-3).

That the petitioners have scored lesser marks than all the selected candidates for 11 Districts under General (UR) category.”

We are now approaching the year 2023. Twenty two years have gone by from the date of initiation of the impugned selection process in the year 2001. The persons selected in the impugned selection process of the year 2001 stand long appointed. They were not even impleaded as parties in the case before the learned Tribunal. Having regard to this huge time- span and also the fact that the petitioners had secured lesser marks than all the selected candidates for all the 11 districts under the general (unreserved) category in the impugned selection process, we are not inclined to interfere with the selection process at this stage. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.