Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, Shri Bhajan Lal & Ors  Insc 399
(23 September 2002)
Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil. Shivaraj V. Patil J.
Special Leave Petition (civil) 10512 of 2000
these petitions, orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissing the Letter Patent Appeals affirming the order passed by the learned
Single Judge are under challenge. The petitioner filed writ petitions claiming
them to have been filed in the public interest questioning the validity, legality
and propriety of selection made by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC)
and appointments made pursuant to the selection by the State Government to the
post of District Food and Supplies Controller relating to respondent no. 4 in
S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000.
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions mainly on two grounds
the petitioner not being one of the contestants for the post of District Food
and Supplies Controller and that the writ petition had been filed only to gain
political advantage as he was Member of Legislative Assembly in 1967, hence he
had no locus standi to file the writ petition;
selected candidates were appointed to the post of District food and Supplies
Controller in the year 1981 i.e. nearly 16 years prior to filing of the writ
petitions. There was no stay of appointment of the selected candidates and they
have been continuing in service and further they had earned two promotions in
1985 and 1989. If the petitioner was really aggrieved, he should have made
representation to the Department that the selected candidates i.e. the
respondents were not qualified for the post.
appeal, the Division Bench although did not find any justification to condone
the delay of 386 days, yet considered the appeals on merits. The Division Bench
noticed that out of the 16 candidates, who were called for interview, the HPSC
selected respondent no. 4 Achint Ram Godara, the petitioner himself was not one
of the candidates for the post and none of the candidates who had not been
selected, challenged his appointment; that during the pendency of the writ
petition, the respondent no. 4 had earned two promotions in the year 1985 and
1989 and even the review application filed by the writ petitioner before the
learned Single Judge was also dismissed on 8.8.1997; respondents 4 to 9 in
S.L.P No. 10512/2000 were similarly placed; the Division Bench did not find any
good ground to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and
concurring with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, Letter Patent
Appeals also were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before
this Court in these petitions.
P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P. no. 9895/2000
submitted that the High Court went wrong in holding that the petitioner had no
locus standi to file the writ petition. He urged that the appointment secured
on the basis of the forged and bogus certificate of experience ought to have
been annulled particularly when the Director General, State Vigilance Bureau
had found that the experience certificate produced by the respondent No. 4 was
bogus; at any rate, the minimum that could have been done was to direct some
authority at least to hold enquiry as to the bogus and forged certificates.
learned counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P.No. 10512/2000 while adopting the
submissions made by Shri P.P. Rao, reiterated the submissions made before the
opposition, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, the learned senior counsel for respondent nos. 4,
8 and 9 in S.L.P. No.10512/2000, Mr. A.Sharan, learned senior counsel for
respondent no.6 and the learned counsel representing other respondents made
submissions supporting the impugned orders.
learned senior counsel submitted that on earlier occasion, a candidate whose
claim for recruitment to the same post was overlooked for want of experience as
Executive Officer had approached the High Court unsuccessfully. When the matter
was brought to this Court in Mohinder Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
(1989 (3) SCC 93), this Court did not disturb the recruitment of the
respondents who had been appointed pursuant to the selection. The learned
senior counsel for the respondents also submitted that in the light of a
statement made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the
HPSC, no case is made out even to conduct any enquiry as to the alleged bogus
certificates said to have been produced by the selected candidates.
view, at this length of time, it may be unnecessary to deal with the question
of locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the petitions. We proceed to
consider on the merits of the contentions raised. It is not in dispute that
respondents who were selected to the post of District Food and Supplies
Controller were appointed in the year 1981; they are continuing in service and
they were given two promotions, one in 1985 and the other in 1989; there was no
interim order issued by any court or authority restraining from making
appointments of the selected candidates or continuing them in service and
giving promotions to them. The petitioner is not a person who is directly
affected in any way. We are not saying this for the purpose of examining his
already stated, we do not intend to go into that question in this case at this
stage. When there was serious dispute between the parties as to whether the
certificates were genuine or bogus or forged, the High Court exercising
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 could not have efficaciously decided
petitioner was serious about the allegations of forgery or fraud alleged to
have been committed by respondent No. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondent
Nos. 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000, he could have pursued with the competent
authorities including the State Government or he could have initiated action on
criminal side by filing complaint. In case the competent authority/court had
found the respondent no.
other selected candidates guilty of the offences, further action could have
been taken for removing them from service. That having not been done and taking
note of the fact that the appointments were made as early as in 1981 i.e. 21
years back and that during this period, the respondents got two promotions, in
our view, the High court was right and justified in not disturbing the
selection and appointment of the respondents.
case of Moninder Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (supra), this Court in para 11, referring to the selected
candidates in the very same selection and appointments made thereto, has stated
thus:- "The selected candidates were, however, not impleaded as
respondents in the writ petition and attempt to implead them at this stage is
bound to prejudice him. They have now been in service for more than eight years
and respondent 4 has even been holding a promotional post for some time. We do
not think in such a situation there would be any justification to allow
challenge to the recruitment of the respondents." It appears in this very
case also, it was brought to the notice of the Court that an enquiry was
undertaken by the Government against some of the selected candidates on the
allegation that forged / false certificates had been produced both in support
of qualification / eligibility and that in the enquiry a prima facie case had
been made out but this Court did not express any opinion about the same stating
that it shall be for the State Government to deal with the question.
attention was drawn to the judgment of the High court in Criminal (Misc.) No.
3190-M/89 to which the State of Haryana was also a party. In that case, F.I.R.
No. 125 dated 13.4.1989 under Sections 420, 467, 471, 466, 161, 120-B IPC
lodged at P.S. City Hisar was sought to be quashed by two of the respondents
namely Lila Dhar and Dharmpal. The F.I.R. was lodged by Shri Satyapaul,
Advocate, Fatehbagh in which almost all the allegations which are made against
the respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P.
No. 10512/2000 were made. The High Court by a detailed and considered order
dated October 11, 1991, quashed the F.I.R. accepting the
petitions filed by some of the respondents herein. It appears the said order
was not challenged any further. Possibly, having regard to this situation and
at this length of time the authorities did not pursue the matter any further as
to holding of further enquiry or taking action pursuant to the report of the
Vigilance Director General against the respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895/2000
and respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512/2000. A submission was also made on
behalf of some respondents particularly respondents 5 and 6 in S.L.P.
No.10512/2000 that even no prima facie case was made out against them in the
having regard to all aspects, we feel not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned
orders. Consequently, these Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. No costs.