'Systematic Fraud, Shocks The Conscience': Himachal Pradesh HC On Appointments Made By State Electricity Board Sans Formal Selection Process

"The official respondents cannot act as despots or monarchs and are obliged to act in accordance with the principles of democracy, equity, equality and solidarity. 25 The entire scenario shocks the conscience of this Court to come across such systematic fraud committed by those who are at the helm of affairs of respondent-Corporation in dealing with its property as if it was their personal property."

The Court further observed that an ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any person, however, the Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination.

"Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal."

The remarks were made while dealing with a writ petition filed by one Roshan Lal, aggrieved by the appointments of private Respondents in the Electricity Department, despite him being more eligible and having better ACRs.

At the outset, the Court noted that both the appointees were ineligible, and ye they were given the position despite eligible and qualified candidates like the petitioner being available.

It reminded the authorities,

"that the power to relax should be exercised with respect to any class or category of persons only when eligible and qualified candidates are not available or else the same would amount to perpetuate mistake."

It added,

"The concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with principles of natural justice. Therefore, any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12 must act fairly and reasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice."

Hence the present petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking his appointment on the post of Assistant Personnel Officer and quashing the appointment of Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4.

The counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner was ignored for the post of Jr. Officer P&A and Assistant Personnel Officer against which Respondents No.3 and 4 have were selected and appointed irrespective of the fact that Respondent No. 3 did not appear for the interview. The counsel further stated that Respondent No. 4 did not fulfill the requisite qualification as he crossed the limit age of 45 Years during the time of appointment for the specified posts.

The counsel for the Respondents argued that the appointments of the private Respondents be protected on the ground of equity. The counsel further submitted that the appointments made by Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 were on the basis of age, qualification, experience, past record, and present posting of all the candidates in which the management committee had the right to relax the requisites, particularly for candidates from HPSEBL/HPPCL. After taking all such into consideration Respondents No. 3 and 4 were appointed in a fair and impartial manner, as contended by the counsel for the Respondents.

Findings

The court negated the argument of the Respondent with respect to the protection of the appointment of the Respondents on the ground of Equity and stated that if such persons, whose initial appointments are bad are allowed to occupy the office and post simply because they continued to hold the same then it would be adding premium to illegality.

"The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory"

Hence, the petition was allowed and the court ordered to quash the appointment of Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4. The court further directed Respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner as Personnel Assistant Officer and compensated Rs. 1,00,000/- . The court also directed Additional Chief Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to hold an enquiry and initiate disciplinary or criminal against the erring officers.

Case Title: Roshan Lal v. HP Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (HP) 7