Dismissed

Surender Singh and Ors. v. Parmod Kumar and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2013LPA/1062/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order quashing appointments at Chaudhary Devi Lal University. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the selection process lacked basic criteria and evidence of merit, violating Article 16. It granted liberty to the appellants to seek continuation in service subject to time-bound fresh selection.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellants to move a Single Judge application for continuation in service till fresh selection is concluded in a time bound manner.

Surender Singh and Ors. Vs Parmod Kumar and… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

LPA No. 1062 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 1062 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 29.05.2013

¶6

Surender Singh and others

¶7

..... Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Parmod Kumar and another

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This Letters Patent Appeal impugns the order dated 26.4.2013, whereby the learned Single Judge, has quashed the selection and consequential appointments to the posts of Lab Attendants made in Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa (for short 'the University'). The selection has been set aside at the instance of one of the un-successful candidates.

¶15

The order under appeal reveals that on 4.3.2013, learned counsel for the parties were heard and a self-speaking order was passed directing the Registrar of the University to file an affidavit giving details of the total number of applications received, the criteria adopted for

¶16

LPA No. 1062 of 2013 (O&M) -2-

¶17

short-listing the candidates, the criteria fixed for selection and how the inter se merit was prepared by the Interview Committee and “entire record of selection” was also directed to be produced in Court.

¶18

Dr. Manoj Siwach, Registrar of the University, thereafter, filed an affidavit dated 27.3.2013, candidly acknowledging that there was no short-listing of the eligible candidates who were called for interview; no specific criteria was fixed by the University or the Selection Committee; only the minutes of the meeting along with the names of selected candidates were forwarded by the Selection Committee; no marks were awarded by the members of the Interview Committee and only the names of selected candidates were mentioned in the minutes of the meeting.

¶19

No exception can be taken to the view formed by the learned Single Judge that when no criteria is laid down nor it is discernible from the record as to how suitability or inter se merit of the candidates was adjudged, the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee in recommending the names of selected candidates was totally alien to the scheme of Article 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶20

As regards to the appellants' plea that they may be allowed to continue till the fresh selection takes place, we find from the order under appeal that no time bound direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to hold the selection afresh. In such a situation, if the appellants are allowed to continue in service, it would be contrary to the spirit of the order under appeal. We, however, grant liberty to the appellants to move

¶21

LPA No. 1062 of 2013 (O&M) -3-

¶22

an application before the learned Single Judge, to consider the desirability of allowing them to continue in service till afresh selection process is concluded in a time bound manner.

¶23

With the liberty afore-mentioned, the instant appeal is

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE May 29, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE

Surender Singh and Ors. v. Parmod Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh and Ors. v. Parmod Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Dass and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Satish Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Devinder Singh Narang Vs Union of India and Ors.

Punjab School Education Board Vs Tarlochan Singh and Ors.

Pb School Education Board Th Its Secretary Vs Sukhpreet Kaur & Ors.