Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak and Ors. Vs Parmod Kumar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

230 LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2025

¶3

PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, ROHTAK AND ORS.

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

PARMOD KUMAR …. Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

¶8

Present : M r . Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate wit h M r . Nilesh Bhardwaj, Mr. Anhad B atta, Mr. Shrenik Jain and M r . Dushyant Singh, Advocates f o r the appellant.

¶9

N o ne for the respondent.

¶10

¶11

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

¶12

N o one appeared on behalf of the r espondent to pursue the appeal . The matter w a s passed over in the first roun d . The position is not differen t even on the re v ised call.

¶13

L e arned counsel for the appellan t is present but none appears o n behalf of the respondent. In such view of the m atter, we proceed to take up th e appeal for fina l hearing treating it to be ex part e against the respondent.

¶14

T h is appeal arises out of an or d er dated 02.06.2023 passed b y learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petit i on filed by the respondent ha s been allowed and a direction is issued to i ssue appointment letter to th e respondent-pet i tioner within a period of two months. The learned Single Judg e has also obser v ed that the petitioner will on l y get notional benefits for th e purpose of sen i ority, length of service etc. fro m the date his batchmates, unde r the advertisem e nt, but he will not be entitled to any actual monetary benefit.

¶15

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 2-

¶17

B r ief facts giving rise to filing o f the present writ petition by th e respondent are as under:-

¶18

4.1 A d vertisement No.1/2008 was iss u ed by the Appellant-Universit y inviting applic a tions for appointment to vari o us posts including the post o f Receptionist u n der BC-B category. The respo n dent-petitioner was eligible an d participated in the selection process. On acco u nt of his low merit, he was no t selected and w a s placed at Sr. No.2 in the wai t ing list drawn in the year 2014 . The recruitme n t ultimately concluded with a p pointments offered to selecte d candidates in the year 2014. One Babru Bhan Yadav was issued a n appointment l e tter on the post of Receptionis t on 02.07.2014. It appears tha t Babru Bhan Y a dav did not join, as he was alr e ady promoted by the Universit y to a higher post. The person placed at Sr. N o.1 in the waiting list namely , Rajender was also not offered the post. It is alleged by the respondent - petitioner that h e had made an application und e r the RTI Act, wherein, he wa s informed that w aiting list’s candidates have no t been offered any appointment.

¶19

4.2 In the year 2016, the appellant- U niversity again advertised 1 7 posts of Recep t ionist under various categories. As per the appellant-University , this advertise m ent included the post of Recepti o nist which was earlier include d in advertisem e nt No.1 of 2008 and had no t been filled. The respondent - petitioner, at t h is stage, made certain represe n tations for considering his cas e for appointme n t but since nothing was done, h e ultimately came to this Cour t by filing CW P No.15433 of 2017. The writ petition has been presented o n 14.07.2017.

¶20

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 3-

¶22

4.3 T h e writ petition was contested , on notice of motion, by th e appellant-Univ e rsity on the ground that the r e spondent had no right to clai m appointment at this belated stage since the sel e ction process had concluded o n 11.06.2014. It was further urged that as per instructions dated 28.10.1993 , issued by Stat e Government, the validity of t he select list was limited to 6 months and ev e n after further extension of 6 m onths’ term, the validity of th e waiting list ex p ired on 10.06.2015. It was in t h is context that the matter cam e before the lear n ed Single Judge.

¶23

4.4 T h e respondent-petitioner conte n ded before the learned Singl e Judge that tho u gh, he was placed in the waiti n g list and a post was available , yet the appell a nt arbitrarily did not consider his case and therefore, writ b e issued in his fa v our to command the appellant t o appoint him.

¶24

4.5 L e arned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment o f Division Benc h of this Court in LPA No.1165 of 2017 titled as State of Haryana and Others vs. Naresh Kumar, dec i ded on 01.12.2022 to hold tha t once the vaca n cy had arisen within a period of one year, during which th e waiting list w a s in existence, any inaction o n the part of the State in no t appointing the writ petitioner, was to render t he action of the appellant-Stat e arbitrary and consequently, direction had been issued to appoint th e respondent-pet i tioner.

¶25

L e arned Senior counsel for the ap p ellant contends that the facts o f this case are q uite distinct from the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra) an d therefore, lear n ed Single Judge had erred in a p plying the ratio of the judgmen t in LPA No.1165 of 2017 to grant the relief impugned in this appeal. It i s

¶26

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 4-

¶28

further urged that the validity of the waiti n g list had already expired o n 10.06.2015, a n d the unfilled vacancy was i n cluded in fresh advertisemen t published by the employer on 30.09.201 6 . It is submitted that fres h advertisement w as never challenged and the r efore, at this belated stage, n o direction could have been issued to appoint the respondent-petitioner.

¶29

6. S o far as the Division Bench’s ju d gment of this Court in the cas e of Naresh Kumar (Supra) is concerned, the f a cts of the case apparently wer e somewhat dist i nct. In para No. 8 thereof, the D ivision Bench, had noticed th e facts of the cas e which are reproduced as unde r :-

¶30

“8. It is not disputed that the adve r tisement (Annexure P-1) is date d 13.08.2019 bearing No.4 of 2009, w h ereby 373 posts of Social Studie s M a sters were sought to be filled up. The result was declared o n 31.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) on the b asis of the interviews held in th e m o nth of May, 2011 by the Har y ana Staff Selection Commissio n ( H SSC). Resultantly on 06.06.201 2 (Annexure R-1) the HSSC ha d re c ommended the candidates for a p pointment to the post of Socia l St u dies Masters, wherein it was specifically mentioned that th e ca n didates selected in the waiting list were not to be considere d a g ainst fresh vacancies as validity p eriod of the waiting list was fo r one year from the date of issuan c e of letter. It was for the Stat e G o vernment to verify the document s pertaining to the qualifications, ex p erience, age and caste/category etc and their antecedents befor e is s uance of appointment orders .”

¶31

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 5-

¶33

A perusal of the judgment in the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra) would further r eveal that no appointments wer e offered to the candidates in th e year 2012, bu t extensions were granted to s u ch persons to join against th e posts. Though, the appointment letters indicat e d that non-joining would resul t in appointmen t being offered to others yet t h e employer issued show caus e notices on 12. 0 8.2014 and the appointment a g ainst the select list were mad e from time to ti m e up to the year 2016. It was in this context that the Divisio n Bench helds in para Nos.13 to 15 thereof, whic h are reproduced as under:-

¶34

“ 1 3. Thus, we are of the consider e d opinion that the reasons whic h have no w been given do not seem to be ger m ane to the controversy and if tha t was so a t the first instance while passing t he speaking order on 14.11.201 4 the same officer would have reasoning as m entioned earlier. The reasoning i s for the m ere purpose that the State Gove r nment had to get over its lack o f inaction a nd deny appointments to the can d idates who were higher in the wai t list. It i s to be noticed no justifiable reasons were given in the writte n statemen t as to why on account of the n on-joining within the prescribe d period o f 15 days as noticed by the learn e d Single Judge when conditiona l appointment orders were issued on 12.11.2 0 12 the wait list was not operated, as the ca n didates did not join. It is on acc o unt of the negligence and inactio n of the St a te Government/appellants which has led to the expiry of the wait list. Though t h e person on the wait list had bee n agitating and clamoring for thei r rights in a s much as they filed representati o ns and served legal notices whic h would b e clear from communication d a ted 07.06.2012 (Annexure P-7 ) wherein N aresh Kumar had put forth his ca s e that he is at Sr. No.1 in the wai t list and if candidates do not join he sho u ld be given a chance. Thus, th e

¶35

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 6-

¶37

observati o ns made in Shankarsan Dash (supra) as reproduced above go o n to show t h e arbitrary action of the State ha s come forth.

¶38

14. Another aspect which is to be n o ticed that one fails to understan d why 35 c andidates were being given the l a titude to join after the stipulate d period a s per the appointment orders and s how cause notice had been issue d to them a s noticed on 12.08 2014 ever the v alidity has expired on 05.06.2013. The said letter mentioned that appointment can be offered to the othe r candidat e s who were standing in the waiti n g list and there was a proposal t o cancel t h eir appointment. Relevant porti o n of the letter dated 12-09.201 4 reads as u nder:-

¶39

“Now, it has been decided b y competent Authority to cance l yo u r candidature or appointme n t letter immediately so tha t ap p ointment can be offered to othe r candidates who were standing i n w a iting list according to their mar k . Now office is in the process o f ca n cellation/termination of your can d idature/ appointment letter.

¶40

But before cancellation of ca n didature, an opportunity of bein g he a rd is being provided to you all to show cause why appointmen t le t ter/candidature should not be can c elled. Hence, your are required t o ap p ear before Additional Director Administration Elementary a t 10:30AM on 25.08.2014 in person a n d submit your version in writing i f an y failing which it will be presume d that you are not interested to sa y an y thing and your candidature/ap p ointment order will be cancelle d ac c ordingly.”

¶41

S d/ - Superint e ndent HRM-1 O/o Dire c tor Elementary Education

¶42

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 7-

¶44

Haryana, Panchkula Dated, P a nchkula the 12.08.2014"

¶45

1 5 . It is also to be noticed that for t h e same advertisement in questio n appointment order have been issued on 1 7.11.2016 to one Geeta Devi o n account of the fact that order passed in LPA No.1563 of 2012 Geeta Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others' arising out o f CWP No.16710 of 2012 had to b e complied with. It is, thus, apparent that e ven on 17.11.2016 appointment s were bei n g made against the said advertis e ment No.4 of 2009 for the post o f Social St u dies Masters after the opinion ha d been given on 13.11.2014 by th e office of t he Chief Secretary Relevant port i on of the order dated 17.11.201 6 reads as u nder-

¶46

" OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION HARYANA,

¶47

PANCHKULA

¶48

O r der No. 17/173-2012 HRM-1 (1) D ated, Panchkula 17.11.2016

¶49

In pursuance of judgment dated 2 1.01.2014 of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in LP A No. 1563 of 2012 in CWP No. 16710 of 2012 titled as Geeta Devi V/S Stat e of Haryana and others, the clai m of the Ap p ellant/Petitioner i.e Geeta Devi f or the post of S.S. Mistress unde r Ex-Servi c eman (General) (Female) cat e gory has been considered i n complian c e of this Judgment (Supra) appoi n tment letter is issued to petitione r i.e. Geet a Devi, on the basis of recommen d ations received from the Haryan a Staff Se l ection Commission No. HSSC / Confd./Recomm./2012/332 date d 06.06.20 1 2 against advt.4/2009 category n o.5 for appointment in Haryan a School E d ucation (Group-C) State Cadre S ervice Rules-2012 on the post o f S.S. Mist r ess in the scale of 9300-34800+ G P 4600/-plus other allowances a s

¶50

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 8-

¶52

sanction e d by the Haryana Govt. from time to time on the following terms an d

¶53

condition s .

¶54

Sr. No.	Employee ID No.	Merit No with category	Nam Add e & ress	Place of posting	Remarks
1	098397	143 (DFF, General)	Gee d/o Kum Villa Gira Jond Jhajj ta Devi Sh. Ram ar ge war, PO hi, Distt. ar	GHS Silothi (4667) Distt. Jhajjar	A/V

¶55

S o far as the judgment in the cas e of Naresh Kumar (Supra ) i s concerned, we find substance in the appellant’ s contention that the direction t o appoint the respondent-petitioner was issued i n the peculiar facts of the case , which cannot b e treated to be lying down any b inding precedent for the presen t case. In the c a se of Naresh Kumar (Supra), the appointment process wa s found to be co n tinuing up to the year 2016, a n d therefore, the Division Benc h was of the vie w that the validity of the waitin g list stood extended. The matte r was otherwise f orwarded to the Chief Secretar y for the extension of the term o f waiting list. A s against the facts of the case of Naresh Kumar (Supra) , we fin d that though a v acancy had come into existen c e on account of non-joining o f one of the sel e cted candidate, but no claim w as lodged by the respondent - petitioner at th a t stage. The validity of the wa i ting list expired on 10.06.2015 . The vacant po s t was included in fresh advertis e ment published on 30.09.2016 . The fresh adve r tisement was not under challen g e. The limited prayer made wa s to extend the l a st date for submission of appli c ation in the fresh advertisement . Interestingly, w rit petition came to be filed aft e r expiry of more than a year o f

¶56

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

LPA No.1115 of 2023 (O&M) - 9-

¶58

the fresh adver t isement. The inordinate delay i n approaching the Court as als o the expiry of validity of waiting list has unfor t unately not been considered b y the learned S ingle Judge, while allowin g the writ petition. In suc h circumstances, we find that merely on the strength of Division Bench’ s judgment in t h e case of Naresh Kumar (supra) , which we have found wa s based on facts of its own, the writ petition fi l ed by the respondent-petitione r could not have been allowed. Consequentl y , this appeal succeeds and i s allowed. The i m pugned judgment and order pa s sed by the learned Single Judg e is hereby set aside. Writ petition in the r espondent-petitioner’s case i s dismissed.

¶59

P e nding application(s), if any, als o stands disposed of.

¶60

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE

¶61

(ROHIT KAPOOR) AUGUST 20, 2025 JUDGE Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned: Ye s /No. Whether reportable : Ye s /No

¶62

Jyoti 2025.08.28 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak and Ors. v. Parmod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak and Ors. v. Parmod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Wadhwa and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parveen Vs Sub Division Magistrate Rewari and Anr.

Nouseva Builwell LLP Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Om Pal @ Ompal Sharma and Others

Kapoor Saini Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission and Others

Aanchal Singh Stone Crusher Vs State of Punjab and Ors.