Petitioners challenged non-appointment to sweeper posts alleging discrimination after selection. Held that mandatory training under 1991 circular was requisite. Citing Ajaib Singh case, Court found no legal right vested. Writ petition dismissed as no ground for interference made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No. 6336 of 1993
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 6336 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2009
Naresh Kumar and Others
.........PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others
......RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 3 i.e. Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ferozepur to give appointment to the petitioners on the posts of sweepers/sweeperesses against their selection by district placement for Border Area Youth Committee. Interview letters were sent. The petitioners were interviewed by the Committee on 22.07.1991 and were found suitable for their appointment on the posts of sweepers/sweeperesses permanently in the Department of Health. Contention is that despite selection, appointment letters have not been given. It has further been pleaded that there had been discrimination and others have been given letters of appointment.
Stand of the respondents is that the petitioners were ineligible in
C.W.P. No. 6336 of 1993
2
terms of policy laid down by Punjab Government in circular letter dated 07.05.1991 placed on record as Annexure R-2. The petitioners were duly conveyed the reasons for not giving appointment to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the issue raised on consideration of the pleadings is squarely covered by judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4540 of 1992 titled Ajaib singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others decided on 17.02.1993.
I have considered the issue. Annexure R-2 dated 07.05.1991 provides that a scheme called “Centre for Training and Employment of Border Youth” had been launched by Director of Youth Services. A decision had been taken that in place of recruiting Border Area Youth under the existing scheme contained in Government instructions dated 30.05.1990, priority should be given only to those Border Youth who have undergone training through the training in “Centre for Training and Employment of Border Area Youth”, thereafter other things being equal regarding qualification etc. should be considered by the department for appointment.
It remains the admitted fact that the petitioners have not undergone the training as provided in communication Annexure R-2. The facts further make it evident that the interview of the petitioners was taken in July 1991 i.e. after issuance of Annexure R-2.
The judgment rendered by this Court in Ajaib Singh's case (supra) shows that this very issue had come up for consideration. Following is the operative part of the judgment:-
“On notice of motion having been issued, replies
have been filed in these cases, inter-alia taking up the stand
C.W.P. No. 6336 of 1993
3
that as per latest instructions issued by the State Government as contained in Annexure R-2 dated May 7, 1991, only such persons were to be offered the posts, who had taken training in “Centre for training and employment of Border Youth”. Since the petitioners had not taken such training, they were not being offered the appointments.
By mere selection no right is vested in the petitioners to the posts. If before appointment instructions were issued modifying the previous instructions with regard to the manner of recruitment, the same could be taken into consideration. The petitioners having not taken any such training, as contemplated under instructions Annexure R-2, could not be accommodated. Since no legal right of the petitioners has been violated, these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.”
The reasons assigned by the respondents are valid in so much as
criteria laid down under Annexure R-2 required a person to have undergone training which was not done by the petitioners. The issue is, therefore, covered by the judgment extracted above.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that discriminatory attitude has been adopted in so much as vide order Annexure P-4 dated 19.11.1992, certain persons have been appointed who have been named in Annexure P-4.
I have considered the argument. Perusal of Annexure P-4 shows that the earlier instructions of 30.05.1990 have been taken into account. The instructions of 1991 that required training have not been considered.
C.W.P. No. 6336 of 1993
4
Also vide Annexure P-4 appointment was given on the post of Mid-wife and not on the post claimed by the petitioners.
I have also noticed that the present matter relates to the year 1993.
In view of the above, no ground for interference in writ
jurisdiction is made out.
Dismissed.
16.11.2009 shivani
(AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction when appointment is denied due to lack of mandatory training under government circular.
Whether selection alone vests a legal right to appointment when subsequent instructions modify recruitment criteria.
Whether discrimination exists where partially compliant appointees were given posts on different categories.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajaib singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and OthersRelied on¶18
CWP No. 4540 of 1992 titled Ajaib singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others decided on 17.02.1993
Naresh Kumar and Others
State of Punjab and Others
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
