Single judge dismissed writ petitions challenging the legality of recruitment processes where selected candidates had been in service for approximately 20 years, ruling that legal niceties must give way to human equity and established service.
The writ petitions challenging the appointments are dismissed.
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.
CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No.16166 of 1991
Krishan Kumar and others ...Petitioners Vs. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others ...Respondents 2. CWP No.16215 of 1991 Sushila Rani ...Petitioner Vs.
The Hissar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent
3. CWP No.1842 of 1992 Raj Kumar and another ...Petitioners Vs. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent 4. CWP No.1843 of 1992 Satyawan and others ...Petitioners Vs. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent Date of Decision: 9.2.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Malik & Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocates for the petitioners
Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate for the respondent.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral )
As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I
propose to dispose of the above indicated writ petitions, by means of a common
CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 2
judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the factual matrix, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in these petitions, has been extracted from (1) CWP No.16166 of 1991 titled Krishan Kumar and others v. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others, for ready reference.
CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 3
the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“Having reached the conclusion about the invalidity of the impugned appointments made by the Chief Justice, we cannot, however, refuse to recognise the consequence that involves on uprooting the appellants. Mr. Gopala Subramanayam, counsel for the appellants while highlighting the human problems involved in the case pleaded for sympathetic approach and made an impassioned appeal for allowing the appellants to continue in their respective posts. He has also referred to us several decisions of this Court where equitable directions were issued in the interests of justice even though the selection and appointments of candidates were held to be illegal and un-supportable.
CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 4
There is good sense in the plea put forward for the appellants. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. required for Second Division Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to higher cadre. They are now overaged for entry into any other service. It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the midstream. Indeed, it would be an act of cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection (See : Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan) 1981 (1) SCR 320 at 326.
The precedents apart, the circumstances of this case justify an humanitarian approach and indeed, the appellants seem to deserve justice ruled by mercy. We take note of the fact that the writ petitioners also would be appointed in the High Court as stated by learned Advocate General of the State.
In the result, we allow these appeals and direct that these appellants should be treated to be regularly appointed with all the benefits of the past service. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified. This order would govern all those whose appointments have been quashed by the High Court. ”
another v. State of Haryana and others , 1999 (2) SLR 259 observed as under -
“Despite the above, we feel reluctant to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The reason which compels us to do so is that the respondents have in fact continued on these posts for the last more than 15 years. In this situation, it would be extremely harsh to them and their families if they are now thrown out of service. They would have admittedly become overage for other posts. We are conscious of the fact that mere delay should not be a ground for putting a seal of approval on illegal appointments. Nor should such a concession
CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 5
encourage the Department to appoint ineligible persons in future. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case and without intending to lay down a precedent, we choose not to interference so as to avoid hardship to respondents No.3 to 15.”
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge
9.2.2011 AS
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petitions challenging illegal recruitment and selection for government posts can be maintained when candidates have worked for over 20 years.
Whether the equities of long service and avoidance of hardship outweigh the illegality in the recruitment process.
Whether the court should allow quashed appointments to stand to prevent relieving experienced employees from service midstream.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.C.Puttaswami and others v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and othersExplained¶24
H.C.Puttaswami and others v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, 1991 SLR 166
Lila Dhar v. State of RajasthanExplained¶27
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan 1981 (1) SCR 320 · Who else cites this
Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana and othersExplained¶30
Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others, 1999 (2) SLR 259
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishan Kumar and others
Sushila Rani
Raj Kumar and another
Satyawan and others
The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
