C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -1- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.M. No.8666 of 2011 In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION :22.05.2012 Jai Singh …Petitioner Versus Punjab University and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present : Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No.4. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for the non-applicant-petitioner. Mr. Karan Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Present application has been filed by applicant-respondent No.4 Subhash Sharma for recall of the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by this Court allowing the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-Jai Singh challenging the promotion of applicant-respondent No.4 to the post of General Foreman on the ground that applicant-respondent No.4 did not possess the qualifications required for promotion to the post and the petitioner being senior to applicant-respondent No.4 is entitled to promotion. Applicant-respondent No.4 despite service did not appear before this Court to defend his promotion and on the basis of the pleadings of the petitioner as well as respondent-University proceeded to decide the case, operative part whereof reads as follows:- “It is apparent from the above that if it is a promotional post, there was no need for an advertisement as it was not mandated under the Rules governing the service. However, C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -2- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 even if an advertisement had been issued with regard to the promotion, the same was required to be circulated amongst all the concerned employees who would be entitled to consideration for promotion. A ground can be taken here that since the petitioner did not pass the trade test, therefore, he was not required to be informed but that cannot be a case in hand because no trade test was held by the University which would render any other employee eligible for promotion to the post. That apart, promotion of respondent No.4 cannot be sustained on the ground that he does not fulfill the qualifications for the post on which he has been promoted. A specific assertion made by the petitioner with regard to the non-fulfillment of the qualification by respondent No.4, has neither been denied by the University in its reply filed nor has respondent No.4 come-forth to defend his promotion, despite service. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed; promotion order dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) of respondent No.4 to the post of General Foreman is hereby quashed. Before parting with the order, a direction is issued to the respondent-University to hold the trade test within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order inviting all the eligible persons who would be, on passing the said test, entitled to consideration for promotion to the post of General Foreman including the petitioner.” A perusal of the above would indicate that it was so projected by the petitioner which was not controverted by the respondent- University that applicant-respondent No.4 was not qualified as he had passed the trade test as mandated under the rules would entitle him for the promotion to the post of General Foreman. Present application for recalling of the order dated 25.05.2011 has been filed by asserting that the respondent-University had not only advertised the post but also circulated it amongst the staff. The Manager, C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -3- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 Punjab University Press invited applications for various posts including the post of General Foreman vide notice dated 14.06.2008. No public notice in any newspaper was given. Petitioner preferred not to apply in response to the notice and applicant-respondent No.4 applied for the post of General Foreman and submitted his application on 23.04.2008. University issued notice No.2291/Estt. Dated 12.12.2008 informing all in- service employees of Punjab University Press, who had applied against various posts regarding holding of the departmental trade test on 22.12.2008. Post of General Foreman was shown at serial number 01 in the notice. As applicant-respondent No.4 fulfilled the requirements for promotion to the post of General Foreman except the trade test he participated in the said test which was held on 22.12.2008 and qualified the same. After qualifying the trade test, interview was held on 29.01.2009 by the Selection Committee and recommendation in favour of the promotion of applicant-respondent No.4 to the post of General Foreman was made on the same day. On 30.01.2009, the Vice Chancellor approved the promotion of applicant-respondent No.4 to the post of General Foreman which promotion order was challenged by the petitioner through the writ petition and this Court had proceeded to pass the orders on the basis of reply which was filed by respondent-University not disclosing the true, correct and complete facts which has resulted in denial of right of promotion to applicant-respondent No.4 and on this basis recall of the order dated 25.05.2011 has been prayed for. Reply to this application has been filed by respondent- University and the petitioner. The facts as narrated above have not been controverted by the petitioner but what has been asserted is that applicant-respondent No.4 should have contested the writ petition and now when a judgment C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -4- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 has been passed against him he cannot be allowed to make prayer for recall of the order. Petitioner has never been invited for the trade test and the post of General Foreman is to be filled up by promotion amongst the eligible employees on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the ratio of 50:50 petitioner being senior should have been considered for promotion. On this basis it has been prayed that the application deserves to be rejected. In the reply filed by the respondent-Punjab University, the facts as stated by applicant-respondent No.4 have not been controverted rather the same have been admitted. Apart from admitting the facts which applicant-respondent No.4 has asserted through his application, it has been stated that after the decision of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2011 fresh applications were invited by the Punjab University Press vide notice dated 23.08.2011 to fill one post of General Foreman. Copy of this notice was especially forwarded to the petitioner who received it himself. Even after receiving the same, petitioner preferred not to apply for the said post and applicant-respondent No.4 was the only candidate, who applied for the post of General Foreman. Applicant-respondent No.4 was informed that the trade test would be held on 21.09.2011. He participated in the same and cleared it. The Selection Committee on 21.09.2011 unanimously recommended the name of applicant-respondent No.4 for promotion to the post of General Foreman. On 17.10.2011, Vice Chancellor approved the promotion of applicant-respondent No.4 to the post of General Foreman. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. When order dated 25.05.2011 passed by this Court is read in consonance with the facts which has been brought to the notice of the C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -5- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 Court through the present application and the response filed thereto, it is apparent that the said order was passed by this Court on the basis of the pleadings which were available on the record. If the true, correct and complete facts had being projected by the Punjab University in its reply to the main writ petition, the result of the writ petition would have been different but it is apparent that the University had in a casual manner filed reply to the writ petition without even caring to respond to the contention as raised by the petitioner while responding thereto. University merely harped upon one issue that in response to the notice issued by the Manager, Punjab University Press inviting applications petitioner had not applied for promotion and therefore, he did not have any right for consideration. This depicts sorry state of affairs of an educational institute of high repute and prestige. Officials who file reply to the pleadings in writs are required to be much more serious and careful while defending the action of the University. Approach although should not be with a bias to defend all actions whether right or wrong but what is minimum expected from the officials is to project the true and correct picture. But as regards the factual aspects are concerned, the University in the present case has miserably failed to do so. Courts depend upon the officials for proper assistance and for that they owe the Court a duty and responsibility not only moral but ethical besides legal as well for the reason that accountability follow the burden which they shoulder by holding a post of high stature and dignity in the institute. This Court is greatly pained at the lack of responsibility and maturity shown by the officials of Punjab University in discharging their onerous duty to the Court. Nothing more is required to be said at this stage as it is hoped that the officials would in future be much more careful and conscientious while submitting their response to the pleadings and project the true C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -6- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 picture before the Court and behave and act in a much more responsible, sincere and trustworthy manner with maturity which is expected from a senior functionary of the University like a Registrar. As has been projected in the reply on behalf of the respondent-University to the application preferred by applicant- respondent No.4, it has been stated that the University indicates in its meeting held on 24.09.2008 for the first time approved the recruitment/promotion rules for the post of General Foreman. Prior thereto, there was no post of General Foreman in the Punjab University Press nor were there rules of recruitment/promotion for the said post. On 14.06.2008, the Manager, Punjab University Press issued a notice inviting the applications from eligible employees of the Punjab University Press for various posts including the post of General Foreman. Last date of receipt of applications was fixed as 24.06.2008 till 2:00 P.M. Notice dated 14.06.2008 dealing with the post of General Foreman read as follows:- “1. General Foreman (1) Rs.5480-8925/- Matric, by promotion by Seniority-cum-merit from amongst (a) Section Holders having 5 years' regular service of Section Holder and (b) Offset Machine Operators having 7 years' regular service, Camera Operator having 7 years regular service and retouch with 10 years' regular service in 50:50 retied (a+b) subject to qualify the trade test. Failing which in case no suitable candidate is available internally for direct recruitment. Direct recruitment: 3 years' Diploma course in printing technology or full technology certificate from a recognized Institute and at least 2 ye4ars supervisory experience in a large printing press.” In response to this notice, applicant-respondent No.4 submitted his application on 23.06.2008 while petitioner preferred not to apply. University vide notice No.2291 dated 12.12.2008 informed all in- C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -7- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 service employees of the Punjab University Press that the departmental trade test will be held on 22.12.2008. The test was held on the scheduled date and three candidates including applicant-respondent No.4 appeared in the trade test. All these three candidates qualified the same and were interviewed on 29.01.2009 by the Selection Committee and name of applicant-respondent No.4 for promotion to the post of General Foreman was recommended by the Selection Committee on the same day. The recommendations made by the Selection Committee were accepted and approved by the Vice Chancellor. Promotion order of the applicant-respondent No.4 was issued on 30.01.2009. Documents in support of these assertions have been appended along with the application as Annexures R-1 to R-8, which support the assertions made by the respondent-University in its application. This leaves this Court with no manner of doubt that on the date the promotion order of applicant-respondent No.4 was issued i.e. 30.01.2009, applicant- respondent No.4 was fully eligible for appointment to the said post. In the light of the factual position which is depicted from the official documents on the record, a case is made out for recall of the order dated 25.05.2011. Ordered accordingly. On considering the factual position as depicted and disclosed above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-Jai Singh cannot survive and deserves to be dismissed as the challenge to the order of promotion of applicant-respondent No.4 vide order dated 30.01.2009 is not sustainable on facts and the statutory rules governing the service. It needs further mention here that even after the passing of the order dated 25.05.2011 by this Court in the main writ petition, fresh applications were invited by the Punjab University Press vide notice dated 23.08.2011 to fill C.M. No.8666 of 2011 -8- In C.W.P No.20374 of 2009 up the post of General Foreman in response with the order passed by this Court in the main writ petition. Petitioner preferred again not to apply for the said post for promotion despite having received the notice dated 23.08.2011 personally. He has also not participated in the trade test which was held on 21.09.2011. This further holds out that the petitioner is not interested in seeking promotion to the post of General Foreman but had probably filed the writ petition by projecting incorrect and incomplete facts in the writ petition only to harm the interest of applicant-respondent No.4 which is not in good spirit but the complete blame cannot be put on the petitioner alone as the respondent-University also has to share the blame by not projecting the complete and true picture before this Court. In view of the above, C.M. No.8666 of 2011 is allowed, order dated 25.05.2011 is hereby recalled and CWP No.20374 of 2009 stands dismissed. 22.05.2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE