'Public Employment Based On Equality, Those Obtaining Employment Through Back-Door Ought To Go Out The Same Way': Punjab & Haryana HC

Observing that "entire edifice of a public appointment rests on the principle of equality in employment", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the appointment of a Senior Manager who was selected in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation, without even applying for the post.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Vikas Suri said, "A person who has been able to obtain employment by a back door method ought to go out the same way. His appointment, therefore, cannot be protected, even if he has worked for several years. Since the appointment is illegal, the same cannot be saved."

The Court added that the entirety of public appointment rests on the principle of equality in employment under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and no one could tinker with such selection.

Candidates, who appeared before the interview authorities, come with full faith towards the selection committee with a belief that the selection committee would select only the best amongst them. Such selection committee, therefore, cannot be allowed to act in a manner which results in wavering the public faith, the Court added.

It opined that the approach of the selection committee was an autocratic action, which is anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It was held that a person who has been appointed to a post for which he has not applied, cannot be said to have been appointed under law, and therefore, it amounted to committing fraud with the public, and no amount of sympathy or compassion can be attached to such an action. The bench agreed with the decision of the single judge to set aside the selection.

These observations came in response to the appeal filed by Sanjeev Singh against Single Bench's decision, whereby the writ petition filed by a candidate Rohit Hurria, was allowed and the selection of Singh on the post of Senior Manager (Estate), was set aside.

The Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSSIDC) published an advertisement for various posts in 2008, which included two posts of Deputy General Manager (Estate).

Singh did not apply for the post of Senior Manager (Estate) and had only participated in the interview conducted for the post of Deputy General Manager (Estate).

While the result was not declared, one Divya Kamal was appointed on one of the posts of Deputy General Manager (Estate) in February, 2009, however, the other post was left unfilled. On the other hand, the post of Deputy General Manager (Estate) which had been advertised, was downgraded to Senior Manager (Estate) and Singh was appointed on the post on the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

In RTI it was found that Divya Kamal had secured 71 marks and was selected and appointed as Deputy General Manager (Estate) and the writ petitioner – Rohit Hurria secured 61...and Sanjeev Singh secured 54 marks."

 After examining the submissions the Court noted that Singh had neither scored the highest marks in the interview nor scored the overall second highest marks.

The bench opined that "it is absolutely amazing that the Selection Committee, which was required to make selection for the post of Deputy General Manager has made recommendations for appointment of a Senior Manager (Estate)."

It was found that the recommendations made by the concerned Selection Committee went beyond the scope of selection and resulted in choosing an individual for a particular post on the whims and fancies of the members of the Selection Committee as if they were the owners of a private company or corporation. 

Stating that the function of HSIIDC were statutory in nature, and no one can be allowed to convert the rule of law to the rule of thumb, the bench said that all the applicants, which included the writ petitioner as well as the appellant, had singularly applied for the post of Deputy General Manager (Estate) and to choose one of them for another post of Senior Manager (Estate) was unjustified.

The Court directed restoration of the post of Deputy General Manager (Estate), which existed at the time of selection while upholding the direction of the Single Bench regarding quashing of the appointment of the appellant on the post of Senior Manager (Estate). 

The Court further directed the corporation to consider the second highest meritorious candidate, for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager (Estate).

Consequently, the plea was disposed of.

Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate assisted by Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant.

D. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Advocates Kannan Malik and  Armaan Dahiya for respondent no.1.

Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 and 4.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 75

Click here to read/download the order