Dismissed

Sharwan Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2013CWP/7129/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order restoring the original merit list for Junior Engineers. The Court held the order was final and noted similarly placed candidates were heard in a representative capacity, rejecting the plea of lack of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The petition praying for quashing of the Tribunal order restoring the original merit list was dismissed.

Sharwan Kumar and Others Vs Union of India and… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.7129-CAT of 2013 Date of Decision : April 08, 2013

¶3

Sharwan Kumar and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶9

Present : Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh allowing the Original Application No.239/PB of 2011 instituted by respondent No.3 and reiterating its earlier direction to act upon the selection panel prepared on the basis of original merit list and to ignore the revised selection result based on re-evaluation of the written examination.

¶17

The petitioners and the private respondents were working as Technician Grade-I in the Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala. All of them participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Engineers. The written examination was held and its result was prepared on the basis of seniority. The selection process was challenged before the Tribunal in various Original Applications, including OA No.332/PB of 2008 (Chamkaur Singh versus Union of India and others) in which

¶18

[2]

¶19

CWP No.7129-CAT of 2013

¶20

the Tribunal held the selection ought to have been made on the basis of merit and not seniority. The official respondents challenged that order before the High Court but withdrew the writ petition. The aforementioned order thus attained finality. Thereafter, some of the employees made representation(s) to the authorities alleging irregularities in the selection process. Those representations were entertained and the Competent Authority re-evaluated the result of the written examination.

¶21

The revised merit list prepared on the basis of reevaluation was challenged in O.A.No.118/PB/2011 (Satbir Singh and others versus Union of India and others) and other connected matters. The Tribunal vide order dated March 1, 2012 held that there no power of re-evaluation was vested with the Competent Authority and consequently, the revised merit list based upon re-evaluated result was set-aside.

¶22

The decision of the Tribunal in Satbir Singh's case (supra) was challenged before this Court in CWP No.3197-CAT of 2013 but that was also dismissed as withdrawn on 14.2.2013.

¶23

The petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal to recall its order in Satbir Singh's case (supra) on the plea that they were not party to that case, but that application was also dismissed on 18.1.2013. The said order too was challenged in the above-mentioned writ petition which was withdrawn by them.

¶24

The petitioners now reiterate their plea that they were not impleaded as party-respondents before the Tribunal, hence no order affecting their selection or placement in the merit list could be passed behind their back.

¶25

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and gone through the record.

¶26

CWP No.7129-CAT of 2013

¶27

[3]

¶28

In the light of the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal setting-aside the result of re-evaluation or restoring original merit list prepared on the basis of performance in the written examination is not under challenge and it has attained finality, no fault can be found with the consequential direction issued by the Tribunal for restoration of selection or inter-se placement in the merit list as per the original merit list. The plea that the petitioners were not heard cannot be entertained as it was a composite selection process and similarly placed candidates were heard by the Tribunal in representative capacity. There can neither be two types of selection lists nor the consequential placement in merit list can be altered only because some of the candidates who were selected as a result of re-evaluation of the written examination were not party respondents before the Tribunal.

¶29

Dismissed.

¶30

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE April 08, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

Sharwan Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharwan Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ut of Chandigarh and Ors. Vs Arun Kumar

Gurmahavir Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amarjit Singh Rana Vs State of Punjab etc.

Sonu @ Vikas Vs State of Haryana

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ashok Kalra and Anr.

Mehar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab