Dismissed¶64

Krishan Kumar v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2025LPA/208/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA dismissed; Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant selection; advertisement dated 02.03.1992; fresh selection 04.03.1996; BC(B) notification 07.06.1995; reserved category claim; public notice 07.01.2014; gross delay and laches; advertisement otiose; purely academic; Balbir Singh LPA No. 312 of 2018 distinguished; Krishan Kumar LPA No. 1543 of 2016; SLP No. 15836 of 2023 dismissed 31.07.2023; Anil Kumar LPA No. 2027 of 2016; HVPNL; UHBVNL; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Letters Patent Appeal.

What did the court decide?

The selection process of 1992 (revised in 1995) has lost its life and become otiose after the State Electricity Board was divided into four companies in 1998-99 and the posts assigned to them; pursuing the appeals at this belated stage is purely academic. ¶60

Krishan Kumar Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran… — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, who had applied as General Category candidates under the 1992 advertisement and whose castes were included in BC(B) only by notification dated 07.06.1995, were entitled to consideration for appointment against reserved category posts in the 1996 selection via the public notice dated 07.01.2014. +2 more

¶30

Court's answer

¶60

Ratio / Principle

On merits, no relief can be granted to the appellants who remained silent about their claim for reserved posts till 2014 although the fresh selection process had started afresh in 1996; the learned Single Judge rightly found the case to be suffering from gross delay and laches.

¶61

Key takeaways

The judgment in Balbir Singh's case (LPA No. 312 of 2018) has no application to the facts of the present case, because unlike there, the respondents had already taken the objection of delay and laches; accordingly all four appeals are dismissed.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Four Letters Patent Appeals (LPA Nos. 208 & 211 of 2017, 293 of 2020 and 819 of 2021) by Krishan Kumar, Daya Nand, Satya Pal and Balwinder Singh against HVPNL/UHBVNL, arising from the 1992 advertisement for 791 Assistant Lineman and 250 Shift Attendant posts and the fresh selection under the advertisement dated 04.03.1996. The appellants had applied as General Category candidates in 1992; their castes were included in BC(B) only by notification dated 07.06.1995; they failed to reach the cut-off in the 1996 selection and later, invoking the public notice dated 07.01.2014 issued after 336 ALM and 75 Shift Attendant posts fell open following CWP No. 17812 of 1997 (decided 03.12.2008), claimed reserved category appointment. The learned Single Judge had ousted them on the ground of gross delay and laches. The Division Bench (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ.) holds that the advertisement has become otiose after the Board was divided into four companies in 1998-99, that the belated pursuit is purely academic, and that the appellants' silence till 2014 disentitles them to relief; Balbir Singh (LPA No. 312 of 2018) is distinguished because the delay/laches objection had already been taken by the respondents here. All four appeals dismissed, consistently with Krishan Kumar (LPA No. 1543 of 2016, SLP dismissed 31.07.2023) and Anil Kumar (LPA No. 2027 of 2016). Pending applications disposed of; no costs.

¶1

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of P ronouncement: 05th May, 202 5

¶4

1. LPA No. 208 of 2017 (O&M) Reser v ed on : 26^th March, 2025 Krish a n Kumar … Appellant Versu s

¶5

Harya n a Vidut Parsaran Nigam Limit e d and others … Respondents

¶6

2. LPA No. 211 of 2017 (O&M) Reser v ed on : 29^th April, 2025 Daya N and … Appellant Versu s Harya n a Vidut Parsaran Nigam Limit e d and others … Respondents

¶7

LPA No. 293 of 2020 (O&M) Reserv e d on : 26^th March, 2025 Satya P al … Appellant Versu s Uttar H aryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Li m ited and others … Respondents

¶8

4. LPA No. 819 of 2021 (O&M) Reserv e d on : 26^th March, 2025 Balwi n der Singh … Appellant Versu s Uttar H aryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Li m ited and others… Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶10

Present: Ms. Sangita Dhanda, Advocate, for the appellants In LPA Nos. 208 & 211 of 201 7 and 819 of 2021.

¶11

Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Ad v ocate assisted by Mr. Arvinder Singh Grover, Ad v ocate, for the appellant in LPA No. 29 3 of 2020.

¶12

Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Senior Adv o cate assisted by Ms. Nitika Goel and Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocates, for respondent-HVPNL and U H BVNL. * ***** **

¶13

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

¶14

The appeals bearing LPA Nos. 293 of 2020 and 819 of 2021 have been p referred by the writ petitione r s who have filed a joint wri t

¶15

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶16

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 2 -

¶17

petition bearing CWP No. 13199 of 2019 along with one another writ petitioner, which was decided by the learned Single Judge on 20.12.2019. The grievance of both the writ petitioners/ appellants is identical. The grounds and the arguments raised are also on the same footing.

¶18

In LPA No. 208 of 2017 – Krishan Kumar vs Haryana Vidut

¶19

Parsaran Nigam Limited and others and LPA No. 211 of 2017 – Daya Nand vs Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others, the appellants assail the orders dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP Nos. 12699 of 2014 and CWP No. 2259 of 2011 independently, though directing them to make appropriate representation.

¶20

As all the four afore-captioned appeals are related to the same selection process of Assistant Lineman (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the ALM’) and Shift Attendant, we have taken up all these matters together and have heard the respective counsels and reserved the cases.

¶21

Shorn off the unnecessary details, the brief facts are that the Haryana State Electricity Board (for short, ‘the Board’) was split into four independent companies registered under the Companies Act in the years 1998 and 1999. Prior thereto, the Board had notified 791 posts of ALM and 250 posts of Shift Attendants vide advertisement dated 02.03.1992, the selection process whereof came to be challenged before this Court in CWP No. 7382 of 1993. Directions were issued by this Court on 29.11.1995 to initiate fresh selection. The SLP was dismissed in February, 1997. The Board, in the meanwhile, issued a fresh advertisement enhancing the posts of ALM to 2000 and Shift Attendants to 542 with a note that the candidates,

¶22

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶23

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 3 -

¶24

who had already applied in pursuance of the earlier advertisement dated 02.03.1992, need not apply again.

¶25

Daya Nand and Krishan Kumar’s belong to BC (A) and SC(A) category, respectively. So far as the appellants are concerned, appellant – Satya Pal belongs to Ahir Caste, while appellant- Balwinder Singh belongs to Saini caste. Both these castes were included only vide notification dated 07.06.1995 in the list of Backward Classes as BC(B). Thus, at the time of filling of applications in terms of earlier advertisement dated 02.03.1992, the candidates, namely, the appellants submitted their application forms in General Category. When the new advertisement was issued on 04.03.1996, as the appellants were not required to file fresh applications, they continued with the said applications alone and were treated as General Category candidates. No attempt was made by them to ask respondents to treat them in reserved category as the appellants had been selected in the earlier selection and were continuing. However, in the fresh selection conducted in terms of the advertisement dated 04.03.1996, their names were considered as per their original applications but they failed to reach the cut off and, therefore, were not selected afresh. None of them chose to agitate any grievance at that stage.

¶26

Other candidates however raised grievance in CWP No. 17812 of 1997 that the reserved category candidates, who were more meritorious than the other Open Category candidates, had been left out and an order was passed allowing their writ petition on 03.12.2008 directing for re-drawing a fresh merit list by including higher meritorious reserved category candidates in the list of General Category. Accordingly in consequences thereof, 336

¶27

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶28

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 4 -

¶29

posts of ALM and 75 posts of Shift Attendant fell open for reserved category candidates. The last candidate from the reserved category was shown to have secured 68 marks. So far as the appellants are concerned, they had never applied under the reserved category nor moved any application and were, therefore, not considered.

¶30

It appears that the posts from reserved category were still left vacant and the respondent authorities accepted that 94 candidates, who had been selected as ALM and 59 candidates selected as Shift Attendant, had not joined from reserved category. Consequently, a public notice was issued on 07.01.2014, inviting applications from the candidates of reserved categories, who had secured more marks than the last selected candidates. Thereafter, the appellants applied under the RTI and it was found that appellant – Krishan Kumar had secured 69, appellant- Daya Nand had secured 70, - Satya Pal had secured 76, and appellant Balwinder Singh had secured 71 marks. But as they never applied under the reserved category, their names did not find place. However, under the garb of public notice issued by the respondents on 07.01.2014, the appellants claim consideration for appointment under the reserved category as after 1995, they had fallen in reserved category.

¶31

Their writ petitions preferred by appellant Krishan Kumar were disposed of with direction to make representation but since the rejection of representation has been done in two other writ petitions of the appellants on 15.05.2015, the appellants approached the Court afresh. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has ousted them from consideration on the

¶32

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶33

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 5 -

¶34

ground that the claim of the writ petitioners suffered from gross delay and laches.

¶35

The decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 22873 of 2010 - Krishan Kumar and others vs Haryana Vidhyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others was also taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and held as under:-

¶36

“ Viewed thus, it is clear that there is no reasonable or justifiable explanation for the delay on the part of the petitioners in taking effective steps to seek redressal of their grievance, which dates back to the year 1997. They took no steps whatsoever till the years 2010/2014 and even then, there is a delay of 4 years on the part of the first and third petitioners, as they did not choose to make a representation till 2014. The petitioners are now seeking to take advantage of the litigation initiated by others who had certain other grievances with regard to the selection made in 1996/1997, but the same would not absolve them of the obvious delay and laches on their part, which remain wholly unexplained. Even on merits, this Court finds that the petitioners took no effective steps to change the status of their candidature, whereby they can claim that injustice has been done to them by not treating them as Backward Class Category candidates.

¶37

Be it viewed on technicalities or on merits, this writ petition is utterly devoid of merit. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants have relied upon the judgment rendered in LPA No. 312 of 2018 – Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others vs Balbir Singh on 24.01.2023, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that as the caste of Gujjar was

¶39

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶40

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 6 -

¶41

not included in BC(B) Category at the time of submitting the applications in the year 1992, and was only notified as a BC (B) Category in the year 1995, the case of Balbir Singh ought to have considered and as the concerned respondent had been appointed in the reserved category, treating him as a reserved category candidate, it was held that his appointment could not have been cancelled and upheld the decision of the Single Bench. The SLP 10422 of 2023 preferred by the State against the said judgment was dismissed on 06.07.2023, while keeping the question of law open.

¶42

The same Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1543 of 2016 Krishan Kumar and others vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others, decided on 19.04.2023 upheld the order where the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of Krishan Kumar and others. In Krishan Kumar ’s case, the Division Bench held as under:-

¶43

“33. If some of these posts remained unfilled because the candidates offered such appointments by the respondents did not join, the only course open to the respondents was to take up the fresh selection because the validity of the waiting list of 1997, pursuant to which the appellants had secured marks, had ended in 1998.

¶44

34. Unless the waiting list in law remains live and valid, the appellants could not have been issued appointment orders on 15.11.2012 and 23.11.2012.

¶45

35. They were given such appointment orders only because of the contempt application No.COCP-2987-2012 seeking implementation of the order dt.22.12.2010 passed in CWP22873-2010.

¶46

36. Once the said order came to be reviewed on 11.12.2014 and was recalled, the services of the appellants had to be

¶47

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶48

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 7 -

¶49

terminated, and no fault can be found with the respondents for taking such action.

¶50

37. The learned Single Judge was also right in holding that some of the appellants could not have filed writs in the year 2010 seeking appointment in the vacancies arising out of the 1997 selection, when they were not parties to CWP-178121997, and had not approached the Court in 1997 to be considered in those vacancies.

¶51

38. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge had properly considered the matter in the right perspective and the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of jurisdiction under the Letters Patent Appeal.”

¶52

SLP No. 15836 of 2023 - Krishan Kumar and others vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others filed against the judgment of Krishan Kumar ’s case (supra), was dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court on 31.07.2023.

¶53

Another LPA No. 2027 of 2016 Anil Kumar and others vs

¶54

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others filed by the appellants therein was also dismissed by another Division Bench of this Court (one of us Member) on 06.05.2024, relying on the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar ’s case (supra).

¶55

Learned counsel for the appellants further vehemently argued that there are two different views of the Division Bench of this Court. Once Balbir Singh was allowed to continue, the appellants ought to be considered under the reserved posts, more so as they stand higher in merit than those who have been selected.

¶56

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶57

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 8 -

¶58

We are unable to accept the contention. In Balbir Singh’ s case (supra), the Division Bench while allowing the appeal noticed one factor, which needs to be taken note of:-

¶59

“In our considered opinion, it was open to the appellants to have contended at that point of time in that Writ Petition that the representation of the respondent cannot be entertained on the ground of laches, but they have waived the said condition. Therefore, they are stopped from raising the said contention in this writ petition. Also, the said contention can be said to be barred by the principle of constructive resjudicata as well.”

¶60

We have also noticed that the selection process is of the year 1992, revised in the year 1995. In the years 1998 and 1999, the said State Electricity Board has already divided into 4 different companies. The posts were also assigned to four different companies. The advertisement has lost its life and has become otiose. After so many years, the candidates who had applied under the said advertisement would have now become 33 years older in age. Some of them may have attained the age of superannuation.

¶61

In view thereto, we find that this entire exercise of pursuing the appeal, which is being conducted at this belated stage, has become purely academic. That apart, on merit also, we do not find any reason to grant relief to the appellants who remained silent with regard to their claim for reserved posts till 2014 while the selection process had been started afresh in the year 1996. The learned Single Judge has, thus, rightly found the case to be suffered from gross delay and laches. The respondents have already taken the said objection and, therefore, the judgment of Balbir Singh ’s case

¶62

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

¶63

LPA No.208 of 2017 and connected cases - 9 -

¶64

(supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we dismiss all the four appeals.

¶65

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶66

No costs.

¶67

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

¶68

05th May, 2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) vs JUDGE

¶69

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶70

Whether reportable Yes/No

¶71

VARINDER SINGH 2025.05.08 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment/order of the learned Single Judge ousting the appellants from consideration for appointment, holding their claims barred by gross delay and laches.¶34
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Prior proceeding
Board notified 791 posts of ALM and 250 posts of Shift Attendants vide advertisement dated 02.03.1992.¶21
Prior proceeding
Selection process of 1992 challenged in CWP No. 7382 of 1993; this Court directed fresh selection on 29.11.1995; SLP dismissed in February, 1997.¶21
Prior proceeding
Fresh advertisement issued on 04.03.1996 enhancing posts to 2000 ALM and 542 Shift Attendants; earlier applicants not required to file fresh applications and continued as General Category candidates.¶25
Prior proceeding
In CWP No. 17812 of 1997 other candidates' grievance allowed on 03.12.2008, directing re-drawing of a fresh merit list including higher-meritorious reserved category candidates in the General Category list.¶26
Prior proceeding
Consequently, 336 posts of ALM and 75 posts of Shift Attendant fell open for reserved category candidates; last reserved category candidate had secured 68 marks.¶29
Prior proceeding
Respondent authorities accepted that 94 candidates selected as ALM and 59 candidates selected as Shift Attendant from the reserved category had not joined.¶30
Prior proceeding
Public notice issued on 07.01.2014 inviting applications from reserved category candidates who had secured more marks than the last selected candidates.¶30
Prior proceeding
Under RTI it was found that Krishan Kumar secured 69, Daya Nand 70, Satya Pal 76 and Balwinder Singh 71 marks; but as they never applied under the reserved category their names did not find place.¶30
Prior proceeding
Orders dated 11.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP Nos. 12699 of 2014 and CWP No. 2259 of 2011 were assailed in LPA Nos. 208 and 211 of 2017.¶19
Prior proceeding
Rejection of the appellants' representations in two other writ petitions on 15.05.2015, after which they approached the Court afresh.¶31
Prior proceeding
Joint writ petition CWP No. 13199 of 2019 (Satya Pal and Balwinder Singh) decided by the learned Single Judge on 20.12.2019.¶17
Prior proceeding
Decision of the Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 22873 of 2010 (Krishan Kumar and others), dismissing the writ petition for unexplained delay and laches, was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge.¶35
Prior proceeding
Division Bench in LPA No. 312 of 2018 (Balbir Singh) allowed the appeal on 24.01.2023, holding that Balbir Singh's appointment in the reserved category could not be cancelled, and upheld the Single Bench decision.¶41
Prior proceeding
SLP 10422 of 2023 preferred by the State against the Balbir Singh judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 06.07.2023, keeping the question of law open.¶41
Prior proceeding
Same Division Bench in LPA No. 1543 of 2016 (Krishan Kumar and others) upheld, on 19.04.2023, the learned Single Judge's rejection of the claim.¶42
Prior proceeding
SLP No. 15836 of 2023 filed against the Krishan Kumar LPA judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 31.07.2023.¶52
Prior proceeding
LPA No. 2027 of 2016 (Anil Kumar and others) was dismissed by another Division Bench of this Court on 06.05.2024, relying on the Supreme Court order in Krishan Kumar's case.¶54

Krishan Kumar v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Kumar v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Chander and Another Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dr. Pratap Singh Vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University Hisar through Its Registrar

Ashok Kumar Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others

Sukhwant Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of School Education and Others

Daya Nand Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Ashok Yadav Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others