C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 Date of Decision. 20.05.2010 Seema Bhalla daughter of R.S. Bhalla resident of House No.4451/2, Suit Gharan Street, Patiala ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Education Department, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.11941 of 1989 Sukhwinder Kaur and others ........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through the Secretary Education, Punjab Education Department, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 3. C.W.P. No.16170 of 1989 Neelam Bala wife of Parmod Kumar ........Petitioner Versus Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 4. C.W.P. No.16176 of 1989 Harjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 5. C.W.P. No.16730 of 1989 Kuldeep Singh S/o Faujdar Singh, Village Jiwan Arian, Tehsil & District Ferozepur ........Petitioner Versus C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -2- Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 6. C.W.P. No.1738 of 1990 Jatinder Singh S/o Gurbachan Singh, Village & P.O. Harse Chhina, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar ........Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Department of Education, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 7. C.W.P. No.3136 of 1990 Satbir Singh son of Shri Surjit Singh and others ........Petitioner Versus Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 8. C.W.P. No.3865 of 1990 Lakhwinder Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary Education, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 9. C.W.P. No.5321 of 1990 Gurdeep Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh ......Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Department of Education, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents 10. C.W.P. No.8207 of 1990 Sardul Singh son of Karnail Singh and others ..........petitioners C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -3- Versus Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ........Respondents 11. C.W.P. No.804 of 1990 Gulzar Singh and others ..........petitioners Versus Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ........Respondents 12. C.W.P. No.1018 of 1990 Surinderjit Kaur Sidhu daughter of Shri Joginder Singh Sidhu, Village & Post office Poohla via Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through the Secretary to Govt. Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ........Respondents 13. C.W.P. No.15169 of 1989 Rosy daughter of Shri Prag Raj Gupta and others ......Petitioners Versus Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 14. C.W.P. No.13827 of 1990 Bhupinder Kaur d/o of S. Mohinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -4- 15. C.W.P. No.11603 of 1990 Ashok Kumasr, Roll No.457 son of Shri Jugal Kishore resident of Maur Mandi, District Bathinda and others .......Petitioners Versus The Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Department of Education, SCO No.31, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. TPS Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners in C.W.P. No.15169 of 1989 and C.W.P No.8207 of 1990. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate and Mr. Animesh, Advocate for the petitioner in C.W.P. No.5473 of 1989. None for rest of the petitiones. Mnr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. All these batch of writ petitions challenge the selection process to the posts of Science Teachers/Mistresses that took place in October, 1987 after an advertisement. All the petitioners have a similar grievance that they have obtained higher marks than persons who have been actually selected. Apart from the official respondents, the private respondents in the writ petitions are not all the same. Each petitioner has impleaded such of the private respondents, who have been shown to have obtained less marks in their essential qualifications prescribed as B.Sc., M.Sc or B.Ed as C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -5- the case may be. The challenge has come about on a fundamental premise that the selections have been made only on the basis of academic qualifications and pointing out instances as to how the petitioners have secured more marks than the respective private respondents shown in the writ petition, it is sought to be urged that the selections were patently illegal. 2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Education Department, it has been contended that the selections were not merely on the basis of the marks obtained in the degree courses or their B.Ed courses but marks had been given for interview, experience, participation in sports, co-curricular activities, higher qualifications etc. Apart from setting out the details that marks had been assigned to each one of the candidates on the basis of several parameters that were relevant for consideration to the post of Teachers, they have contended that all the persons, who had been selected had obtained an overall higher grading than the petitioners. All these cases had been filed in the year 1989 and after notices and statements filed by the respondents, they have subsequently been ordered to be admitted. Although the State Government has given several variables that governed their consideration for selection, it has not placed the exact details of marks which each one of the candidates has obtained. The petitioners themselves do not appear to have undertaken any interest to secure the details of the marks as assigned to the candidates. In 1989 when the cases were filed, that was still an era of pre-Right to Information Act and the petitioners have not C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -6- attempted to elicit all the relevant information to be placed before Court. Now when the case taken in the year 2010, I sought the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the State to give all the details of marks secured by the candidates and on what basis or information were the parameters set for selection and how the respective marks have been assigned to each one of them. Learned counsel, Sh. Manohar Lall took time to secure the information but gave to the Court no more than providing an oral information secured from the Chairman of the Selection Committee that all the records are not now available and it is, therefore, not possible to give the necessary information regarding the marks secured by each one of the candidates. Learned counsel, Sh. Manohar Lall was prepared to give the information that following were the criteria adopted for selection:- “1. Matriculation - 5% 2. B.A - 35.1% 3. B.Ed - 34.9% 4. Interview - 5 marks 5. Experience - 5 marks 6. Sports - 5 marks 7. Co-curricular activities - 5 marks 8. Higher qualifications - 3.75 marks However, there is no authenticity to the information given. It shall not be possible for me to secure any evidence at this length of time nor is it even possible to complain that all the information must have been retained now, if it was not already elicited at the time of filing of the writ petition or immediately thereafter. Even when the voices go shrill about how the delays in the Court process could defeat justice (Justice delayed as justice denied), this batch of C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -7- cases would go down as illustrations of the above most touted expression. It is not possible to bring succour to the petitioners with the type of information that they have provided to the Court. They may not all be at fault for the sheer delay in disposal of these cases but one thing has surely happened that this delay has made it impossible to secure the information which is relevant for dispensation of justice. 3. Some other petitioners had voluntarily given statements in court saying that the cases had become infructuous and sought for dismissal. I dismissed the same on 26.04.2010. In this batch of cases, I have held back four pronouncing judgments to see whether information was possible to be brought out through official records. No assistance is coming forth with authentic documents. I have no option but to decline the reliefs which the petitioners have sought for. I asked by the counsel for some of the petitioners as to how the relief of setting aside the selection would obtain relevance after so much time, when the persons selected already assumed their offices as early as in the year 1989-1990. Learned counsel, Sh. Akshay Bhan appearing for some of them replied that it might become possible for them to treat themselves as having been selected on the date when the private respondents were selected and obtain the revision of scales of pay treating the said date as date of entry into service and secure the corresponding increased terminal benefits. This argument was on behalf of some of the petitioners, who had in a subsequent selection process got selected as Teachers and who have been working till now or who have C.W.P. No.5743 of 1989 -8- recently retired from service. The consideration sought in the above manner brings in too much of hypothetical element and hence incapable of being heeded to. Again, when the relevant data is not available to make an objective rendering of an adjudication relating to selection process, the petitioners cannot secure the reliefs on the only ground that the respondent has not produced any document to defend their own cases. The point is never to be missed that the petitioners shall always establish their contention and secondly, before they could ask the respondents to produce the documents, the petitioners are able to say no more than the fact that they had more marks in the degree qualifications than the private respondents. They have no right to assume before filing a writ petition that the marks in the degree qualifications alone were relevant. They ought to have secured information through representations as to the relevant criteria for selection. For what information the petitioners themselves did not furnish, the petitions shall fail. 4. The writ petitions are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 20, 2010 Pankaj*