CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No.16166 of 1991 Krishan Kumar and others ...Petitioners Vs. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others ...Respondents 2. CWP No.16215 of 1991 Sushila Rani ...Petitioner Vs. The Hissar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent 3. CWP No.1842 of 1992 Raj Kumar and another ...Petitioners Vs. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent 4. CWP No.1843 of 1992 Satyawan and others ...Petitioners Vs. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Respondent Date of Decision: 9.2.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Malik & Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the above indicated writ petitions, by means of a common CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 2 judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the factual matrix, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in these petitions, has been extracted from (1) CWP No.16166 of 1991 titled Krishan Kumar and others v. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others, for ready reference. 2. The epitome of facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that the Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (for brevity 'respondent bank') advertised the posts of Junior Accountants, Clerks and Peons, vide advertisement dated 23.8.1991 (Annexure P-1). In pursuance of the advertisement, 1793 candidates appeared for the posts of Clerks, 2028 for the posts of Peons and 157 candidates appeared for the posts of Junior Accountants, for interview on 9.9.1991, which was held by respondent No.1, ignoring the telegram dated 3.8.1991 (Annexure P- 2) of the Government. 3. The petitioners claimed that since there was no one to take the interview of the candidates at the scheduled place and time, but only the employees of the respondent-bank were marking their presence, so, the angry candidates pelted stones on the glasses of Jat Dharamshala and broken the window glasses and furniture lying there. In this manner, no interview was stated to have taken place on 9.9.1991. The petitioners could not appear in the interview on account of the melee by the angry candidates. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioners that although no interview was held, but still, the respondent bank issued appointment letters to the selected candidates/private respondents. They have attached one such appointment letter (Annexure P-5). 5. The petitioners did not feel satisfied and instituted the instant writ petitions, challenging the selections/appointments of private respondents, invoking CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 3 the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The respondents appeared and writ petitions were admitted by a Division Bench of this Court, by virtue of order dated 20.11.1991, but no stay of appointments was granted. Consequently, the selected candidates/private respondents joined and were worked since then on their respective posts. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, relevant law with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petitions. 8. As is evident from the record that the petitioners claimed that the selection/appointment of private respondents on their respective posts is based on illegal and false interview. Be that as it may, what is not disputed here is that the private respondents were selected and they have joined their respective posts, in pursuance of their appointment letter dated 17.9.1991 (Annexure P-5) and since then, they were working on their respective posts. Therefore, without going to the merits and de-merits of the selection/recruitment process, to me, it would not be appropriate and in the interest of justice, to dislodge the selected candidates/private respondents, after a period of about 20 years from their respective posts. 9. An identical question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of H.C.Puttaswami and others v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, 1991 SLR 166, in which, it was ruled as under - “Having reached the conclusion about the invalidity of the impugned appointments made by the Chief Justice, we cannot, however, refuse to recognise the consequence that involves on uprooting the appellants. Mr. Gopala Subramanayam, counsel for the appellants while highlighting the human problems involved in the case pleaded for sympathetic approach and made an impassioned appeal for allowing the appellants to continue in their respective posts. He has also referred to us several decisions of this Court where equitable directions were issued in the interests of justice even though the selection and appointments of candidates were held to be illegal and un-supportable. CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 4 There is good sense in the plea put forward for the appellants. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. required for Second Division Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to higher cadre. They are now overaged for entry into any other service. It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the midstream. Indeed, it would be an act of cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection (See : Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan) 1981 (1) SCR 320 at 326. The precedents apart, the circumstances of this case justify an humanitarian approach and indeed, the appellants seem to deserve justice ruled by mercy. We take note of the fact that the writ petitioners also would be appointed in the High Court as stated by learned Advocate General of the State. In the result, we allow these appeals and direct that these appellants should be treated to be regularly appointed with all the benefits of the past service. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified. This order would govern all those whose appointments have been quashed by the High Court.” 10. Again, a Division Bench of this Court, in case Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others , 1999 (2) SLR 259 observed as under - “Despite the above, we feel reluctant to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The reason which compels us to do so is that the respondents have in fact continued on these posts for the last more than 15 years. In this situation, it would be extremely harsh to them and their families if they are now thrown out of service. They would have admittedly become overage for other posts. We are conscious of the fact that mere delay should not be a ground for putting a seal of approval on illegal appointments. Nor should such a concession CWP Nos.16166, 16215 of 1991, 1842 & 1843 of 1992 5 encourage the Department to appoint ineligible persons in future. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case and without intending to lay down a precedent, we choose not to interference so as to avoid hardship to respondents No.3 to 15.” 11. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is attracted in the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 9.2.2011 AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No