C.W.P.No. 588 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C.W.P.No. 588 of 2009 Date of decision:- 8.12.2009 Gurdial Singh ...Petitioner. Vs. Haryana State Agricultrue Marketing Board & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA. Present:- Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.R.Olla, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) This civil writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 as peon with Market Committee, Mustafabad. The petitioner is matriculate having done his matriculation from Haryana School Education Board in the year 1982. Petitioner worked on the post of peon at G.B.S. Public School, Mustafabad from 2.4.1998 to 5.10.1999 and thereafter worked as Gardener-cum-Peon with S.R.Senior Secondary School, Thana Chhappar, District Yamunanagar from 6.10.1999 to 30.6.2000. He also worked in the C.W.P.No. 588 of 2009 District Health & Family Welfare Society, Yamunanagar from 3.1.2002 to 31.3.2007 on the post of Peon. The Market Committee-respondent No.2 advertised one post of peon and one post of Chowkidar for appointment of Scheduled Caste candidates only on 4.10.2008. Candidates were called from employment exchange. Employment Exchange Yamunanagar sent the names of 12 candidates for appointment to the post of peon. The petitioner was one of the sponsered candidates of the Employment Exchange for the post. Petitioner was issued an interview letter dated 14.6.2008 directing him to appear in the office of Divisional Employment Office on 27.10.2008 at 10.00 AM for consideration of his candidature for the post of Peon. Vide letter dated 4.11.2008, respondent No.4 i.e. Secretary of Market Committee Mustafabad District Yamunanagar addressed a letter to Employment Exchange Yamunanagar pointing therein that no candidates sponsered by the Employment Exchange was found suitable for the job. The case of the petitioner is that on enquiry it was revealed that his candidature was rejected being over age. This according to the petitioner could not be a ground because he was less then 45 years of age on the date of interview. C.W.P.No. 588 of 2009 The respondent No.2 selected respondent No.5 as peon who is the son of respondent No.4 Sh.Jagdish Chand, Secretary of Market Committee, Mustaabad, District Yamuna Nagar. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner therefore was that the Selection Committee did not consider the merit of the candidates and appointed respondent No.5 under the influence of respondent No.4. Furthermore the reason of rejection of his candidature was contrary to eligibility criteria. The notice of the writ petition was issued. In the written statement, the reason for rejection of candidature of the petitioner is as under:- "That the contents of para No.13 of the writ petition are wrong and denied and the claim of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground of over age, but he does not came in merit after consideration of the facts and circumstances mentioned above in this para. That the village of the petitioner does not fall in the list of village of Notified Market Committee Area of Mustafabad, Haryana. A copy of the list issued by the Market Committee Mustafabad is attached herewith as Annexure R- 2. From the above said fact it is clear that as per advertisement preference is to be given to the candidate C.W.P.No. 588 of 2009 belonging to the Area of Market Committee Mustafabad. That's why the appointment of respondent No.5 is as per law and as per conditions given in the advertisement itself." Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he did not fall in the notified Market Area of Mustafabad is contrary to the terms of advertisement, as the requirement was that the candidate is to be from block Mustafabad and not area of notified committee Mustafabad. It is not in dispute that the village of the petitioner falls within a notified area of Mustafabad. The respondents have justified the selection of respondent No. 5 by raising preliminary objection that the petitioner had only right to be considered and he stands considered by the Selection Committee, but he not be selected as respondent No.5 was found to be of better merit. It is also a stand taken by the respondent that the allegation of the petitioner that Selection of respondent No.5 is on account of influence of respondent No.4 stands belied from the fact that respondent No.4 was not Member of the Selection Committee. No fault therefore can be found with the Selection of respondent No.5. On consideration, I find that selection of respondent no.5 to the post cannot be sustained for more than one reason. C.W.P.No. 588 of 2009 It is not in dispute that respondent No.5 is son of respondent No.4, who is Secretary of the Market Committee and is the person who informed the Employment Exchange regarding the rejection of all the candidates sponsered by the Employment Exchange. It is also cannot be disputed that as per written statement the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that his village did not fall within the block of Market Committee which again could not be a ground in view of the fact that as per advertisement, candidates of block Mustafabad were to be considered, and the petitioner was from block Mustafabad. The merit of the petitioner also cannot be said to be less than respondent No.5, as both the candidates were metriculate. Petitioner has an experience of seven years of working, whereas respondent No.5 has no experience. In order to check whether the merit of the candidates was considered by the Selection Committee, record was seen. It is surprising to note that there is no proceeding of the Selection Committee record. The resolution dated 27.10.2008 is only record showing list of candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and those who applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued. The resolution was passed by the Chairman, Market C.W.P.No. 588 of 2009 Committee, wherein it has been mentioned that Committee had interviewed all the candidates, and unanimously recommended the name of respondent No.5 for appointment. There is no recommendation on record. The reading of the file confirms the fact that everything was not fair and is infact no interview was conducted by the Selection Committee, nor any assessment was made of the candidates who appeared for interview. Appointment of respondent no.5 has been made unfairly, which is arbitrarty and cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No.5 is quashed. Market Committee is directed to invite fresh applications for the post of peon and thereafter fill up the post in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 is directed to nominate an independant officer who should be Member of the Section Committee to see that selection is fair and impartial. December 8, 2009 (Vinod K. Sharma) tripti Judge