LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) & LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) :1: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 08, 2011 1. LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) Jagpal Singh & others .... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents 2. LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) Sanjay Kumar .... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate for the appellants. ***** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos.682 and 700 of 2011 as the common questions of law and facts have been raised. The challenge in these appeals filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is to a common judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in two connected petitions rendered on 11.03.2011, The matter pertains to selection of drivers belonging to the Sonepat LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) & LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) :2: depot of Haryana Roadways for which interviews were held from January 9th to January 11th, 2008 and the result was declared in June 2008. The learned Single Judge has categorically held that in respect of selection made for the posts in Karnal and Chandigarh depot of the Haryana Roadways along with others the records were produced but the respondents did not produce the record of impugned selection belonging to Sonepat depot despite repeated directions. It has been found that the Selection Committee in other depots like Karnal and Chandigarh has awarded the grades in their own hand and each page was found to be signed by the members of the Selection Committee. It was, thereafter, that the proceedings were forwarded to the Head Office. However, with regard to the impugned selection of Sonepat depot, the learned Single Judge has concluded that no original record of proceedings have been made available. The learned Single Judge discarded the argument advanced by the Advocate General Haryana that the list sent by the Sonepat depot is a compilation which did not need individual signature of the members. The basis for rejecting the aforesaid argument was that the Court has been kept in dark. The foundation of the compilation reflected in the list sent to the Head Office was missing. The original record has been kept back. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following observations:- “.....But in so far as Sonepat depot is concerned, no such proceedings are available on record despite the persistence of this Court. Learned Advocate General with vehemence at his command has contended repeatedly that the list LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) & LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) :3: sent by the Sonepat depot is a compilation and even if this plea is accepted, the Court wants to know the foundation and the basis from which such compilation is carried out in print. It is not conceivable that the members of the Selection Committee would have prepared this list at the time of conducting the interviews and what transpired during the interview has to find its manifestation in the proceedings which the members would have resorted to ordinarily and prudently The approach of the State of Haryana has thus been evasive in this regard which when evaluated against the available record qua the other depots speaks volumes and can merely invite a cynicism of the Court. The process of selection has to be fair and transparent and any attempt which even remotely casts a shadow of doubt delivers a double blow. Not only does it adversely impact the aspirations of gullible person seeking appointment but it also hits at the credibility of the system and the Government and its functionaries do not have the liberty to put it at stake and if it does so Court has to intervene because if the credibility of the system is threatened it shakes the confidence of the people, and the process of selection in public appointments, for these reasons, cannot be given any other colour than fairness. To the mind of this court, the process of selection does not seem to be fair as the perusal of the list reveals an attempt at a tailored selection list. It is not a reflection of the proper selection. Candidates from Sr. No.1 to 28 have been assessed as excellent. Thereafter from 29 to 61 LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) & LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) :4: have been consistently assessed as very good and from 62 to 78 have been assessed as good and thereafter the remaining have been assessed as average.” 2. The aforesaid extracts from the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge would reveal beyond a doubt that the respondent had adopted an arbitrary criteria and unfair process of selection. The candidates from Sr. No.1 to 28 have been assigned in one lot as excellent and then from Sr.No.29 to 61 very good and from 62 to 78 in the lot of good. The remaining as average. This would illustrate their arbitrariness and patent violation of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. 3. We have heard Mr. J.S.Dahiya, learned counsel for the appellants who were selected as drivers for Sonepat depot. Mr. Dahiya has argued that there are factual errors in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in so far as lots of excellent, very good and good are concerned. According to Mr. J.S. Dahiya, these are not in ascending orders or descending orders. They did not reveal any particular pattern so as to be dubbed as arbitrary. He has maintained that proper selection process was followed and a procedural lapse of non-signing cannot be given exalted status of substantive lapse vitiating the whole selection. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, perusing the impugned judgment and paper book, we are of the considered view that the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. It is amazing that the writ petitioners-respondents obtained information under the Right LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) & LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) :5: to Information Act, when they were told that all the lists have been signed by individual members whereas, the learned Single Judge has found the aforesaid stand to be wholly incorrect. The respondent-State of Haryana has failed to produce original record creating a doubt in the mind of the Court that all was not well in the selection of the appellants. It is now well settled that transparency in the process of selection in public employment is the hallmark of Article 14 and Article 16 (i) of the Constitution and any attempt on the part of the respondent to cover up its misdeed by depriving the Court to look into the record revealing mechanism of selection is bound to invite adverse and disparaging remarks. There is no reason given by the respondent-State as to why the record has not been produced before the Court, when the record of other selection conducted by other Selection Committees in respect of other Depots of Haryana Roadways could be produced. There was no reason to conceal the record pertaining to Sonepat depot. 5. The argument of the counsel for the appellants that there were procedural irregularities which cannot be used to vitiate the whole selection has failed to impress us because not only the record has been concealed but the pattern of selection extracted by the learned Single Judge shows complete negatiation of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. In fact, it is a case of State arbitrariness in making appointment to the public service. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was not a party before the learned single judge would also not cut any ice because a large number of other selected candidates were already impleaded as LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) & LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) :6: respondents and were represented before the learned Single Judge. Their cause has not been ignored. It is now well settled each and every person does not need to be a party when selection to a public post is challenged. In any case, the selection has not been quashed on the ground of an individual lapse in an individual case but on the basis of the lapses which vitiate the whole selection process. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabodh Verma v. State of UP, (1984) 4 SCC 251, has held that the High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 without the persons, who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents. What is significant to notice is that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down that at least if some of them are before the High Court as respondents in a representative capacity then it would be sufficient in cases their number is unmanagable and it is time consuming to serve by joining each one of them as respondent individually. The aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court have been followed and applied in a recent judgment titled as Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal (2009) 1 SCC 768 and it has been held that at least some of the candidates, whose appointment was challenged ought to have been impleaded in representative capacities. Accordingly, it has to be held that each and every selected candidate in such like proceedings, is not necessary to be impleaded as a respondent, particularly when the individual capacity of any candidate is not in question and the selection has been vitiated on fact and principle, which are all pervasive and which affect everyone. Therefore, we do not find any LPA No.682 of 2011 (O&M) & LPA No.700 of 2011 (O&M) :7: legal infirmity in the view of the learned Single Judge. 6. As a sequel to the above discussion, these appeals are dismissed. In case, the appellants are aggrieved by any factual mistakes in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge then they may seek any remedy available to them according to law. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE April 08, 2011 sonika