In a regularization second appeal challenging denial of security guard appointment, Justice Dhindsa dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the lower courts' conclusion that the appellant lacked requisite merit compared to selected candidates.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 12452-C of 2011 & RSA No. 4311 of 2011 Date of Decision: 29.2.2012.
Mahender Singh
--Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India & others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J
C.M. No. 12452-C of 2011
This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 28 days in re-filing the present appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, same is allowed. Delay of 28 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.
RSA No. 4311 of 2011
The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
Briefly noticed, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to be selected for the post of Security Guard with the State Bank of India and the denial of such appointment on the post of Security Guard by ignoring the plaintiffappellant is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. A relief for mandatory injunction was also sought for directing the defendants to select the plaintiff-appellant as Security Guard and to give him pay and
RSA No. 4311 of 2011 -2-
allowances with effect from the date of selection of the other candidates along with the interest @ 18% per annum. It was pleaded that applications for the post of Security Guard in State Bank of India had been invited. The total number of vacancies were approximately 60. He had received an interview call which was scheduled to be held on 22.12.2005. The interview was duly conducted by a Selection Committee in the office of defendant no.3 but subsequently no information regarding the selection or rejection had been received. On 7.7.2006 the plaintiff-appellant became aware regarding selection of certain other candidates on the post of Security Guard. Accordingly, the suit had been filed. Defendants contested the suit in terms of filing a joint written statement stating that a total of 254 candidates had been called for the interview against 59 vacancies of Security Guards. Out of the 254 candidates called, 62 candidates belonged to the Backward Caste category. The interview was conducted at three places i.e. Rohtak, Karnal and Hisar and the candidates were evaluated in terms of their performance in a physical test as also the oral interview. A total of 59 candidates were selected and appointment letters had been issued and even the reservation to S.C./O.B.C candidates had been given as per rules. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant and even a civil appeal preferred by him has met the same fate in terms of the impugned judgement dated 15.3.2011 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani.
I have heard Mr. Surender Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant at length.
The only argument raised by the counsel is that the plaintiffappellant was more meritorious as compared to the selected candidates and
RSA No. 4311 of 2011
-3-
as such the denial of appointment to the post of Security Guard is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel would, accordingly, contend that the courts below have not considered this aspect and have, thus, proceeded on mere conjectures and surmises.
I find that there is no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal. Guidelines for purposes of recruitment of Security Guard were duly placed on record as Ex.D-6. The merit list of all the 254 candidates that had appeared in the interview was placed on record as Ex.D-5 along with enclosures C to D. Ex.D-1 to D-4 were the interview sheets in which the respective marks secured by the candidates were specifically mentioned. As per record the plaintiff-appellant secured 4 marks out of 10 marks in the physical test and in the interview he obtained 32 marks out of 40 i.e. a total of 36 marks out of 50 marks. Even though, the plaintiff-appellant claims the benefit of reserved category but even in such respect, it has been found that the last candidate pertaining to such category, who was selected and given appointment had secured 44 marks.
It is not the case of the plaintiff-appellant that a selection criteria had not been formulated or for that matter the same had not been followed. Even the constitution of the Selection Committee is not under challenge. The plaintiff-appellant was vested with a right for fair consideration and the same has been duly afforded to him. No candidate, who was below in merit i.e. having secured 36 marks or less in the combined merit has been appointed to the post of Security Guard. Apparently, a comprehensive and transparent selection process for appointment as Security Guard had been followed by the defendant-bank in which the plaintiff-appellant had failed to secure an appointment as he did
RSA No. 4311 of 2011
-4-
not possess the requisite marks.
I find no infirmity or perversity in the findings of the courts below in denying to the plaintiff-appellant the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as regards selection and appointment to the post of Security Guard, is concerned. The present appeal does not raise any question of law much less a substantial question of law and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
29.2.2012. lucky
Whether to be reported? No.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Regular Second Appeal raises any substantial question of law regarding the denial of appointment as a Security Guard.
Whether the findings of the courts below denying declaration and mandatory injunction were perverse or lacked merit.
Mahender Singh
State Bank of India
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
