CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 30, 2011 Mohinder Singh Sangwan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 23.4.2007 and 25.9.2006, rejecting his representations and for issuing direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). From the above and the facts noticed hereinafter, it would become clear that the petitioner is espousing a delayed cause. Having joined the Revenue Department on 5.9.1983 as Naib Tehsildar, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment to H.C.S (Executive Branch) on 15.5.1994 by way of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: special recruitment under proviso to Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930. Accordingly, he joined the services of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch). The petitioner, however, was unable to qualify all papers of the Departmental examination and his services were terminated and the petitioner was reverted to his parent department on 24.3.1998. The petitioner impugned this order by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of on 15.10.2001, reinstating the petitioner without back wages. The Court further directed that examination in question would be conducted within one year from the date of order and if the petitioner failed to take the said examination or failed to pass the examination at the required standard, then it would be open for the State to terminate his services. The State filed L.P.A. against this order, which was dismissed on 28.2.2002 by passing a detailed order. In the meantime, the petitioner appears to have been allowed a chance to clear the departmental examination, which was held on 26.11.2001. The result thereof was declared on 28.5.2002. The petitioner was found guilty of using unfair means in Revenue Law Paper-II. Disciplinary action was recommended against the petitioner alongwith some other candidates. The petitioner was declared to have failed in the departmental examination and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. A charge sheet was accordingly issued to the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules on 10.2.2005. The petitioner submitted his reply. Ultimately, the petitioner was exonerated of the charge of using unfair means on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: 3.8.2006. In view of this position, the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.9.2006, pleading that he be treated to have passed the departmental examination in the year 2001. When he did not receive any reply, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act on 15.11.2007, when the petitioner was informed in July 2008 that his representation for reinstatement was rejected on 23.4.2007. The petitioner then filed Civil Writ Petition No.955 of 2009 on 21.1.2009 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition after obtaining appropriate information. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present writ petition. The reversion of the petitioner initially was in the year 1998, when he could not qualify the departmental examination. Though his writ petition was allowed but the petitioner appeared and had shown failed in an examination held in November 2001. The prayer made by the petitioner to declare him pass because he has been exonerated of using unfair means, certainly is not only a tall claim, but unfair too. This can not be considered at this belated stage. The petitioner may have been exonerated and it would be on the ground that the charge levelled against him could not be fully established or proved. This finding came in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The effect would be that the petitioner can not be punished, for which these proceedings were held. Whether this can mean that the petitioner had passed the examination, is something which is unacceptable. The petitioner having been exonerated of charge of using unfair means, would only mean that he can not be punished but to urge that it will have any CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: effect on the result is unwarranted. The result of the examination where the petitioner had adopted unfair means certainly can not be declared as the same had been declared in the year 2001, showing the petitioner to have failed. Being well aware of this difficulty, the petitioner has made an alternative prayer for allowing him another chance. At this stage, this prayer would also appear to be unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner has remained out of H.C.S. Service ever since 1998 and permitting him a chance to clear the departmental examination after expiry of 13 years would certainly amount to adding premium over his inefficiency, which can not be permitted in fairness or otherwise. That apart, there is an intervening factor, for which the petitioner apparently would not have any right to ask for another chance. The State of Haryana had in fact challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and upheld in L.P.A. by filing Special Leave Petition in November 2002 and the said Special Leave Petition was allowed and the impugned judgement passed by the L.P.A. Bench was set-aside. The attempt on the part of the counsel for the petitioner to urge that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court denied him the chance given by the Court and not the chance which the respondents themselves allowed may be a smart move, but not a legally sound one. The chance, which the petitioner availed, was only because of the order passed by this court, but for this order, the petitioner could never have been allowed to appear in the examination. The reversion of the petitioner had taken place in the year 1998 and the chance to appear in the examination accrued to him only due to the judgement passed by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: learned Single Judge in the year 2001. If this Court had not directed the respondents to afford a chance to the petitioner to appear in the examination, the petitioner would never have got any chance or opportunity to appear in the examination. The State of Haryana had appealed against this order and in the meantime, the examination was being held. The petitioner was permitted to appear because of the order passed by this Court. The L.P.A Bench upheld the order of learned Single Judge. The petitioner had failed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently in November 2002 set-aside the order passed by the L.P.A Bench and the right/opportunity or a chance that was allowed to the petitioner obviously stood taken away. Therefore, whatever may be the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner, in my view, would not be justified in asking for another chance or opportunity to appear in the examination at this delayed and belated stage. Just to dispel the impression that the counsel has attempted to convey, it may be appropriate to notice the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner was negated by the Court by observing:- “.........But we are unable to accede to this prayer inasmuch as in the teeth of the provisions contained in Rule 21, if the Court permits continuance of the employees, even without passing of departmental examination, that would tantamount to giving a premium to inefficiency, and we do not permit this premium. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: Court.” No premium can be allowed on the inefficiency of the petitioner and that too at this belated stage. If any chance is now allowed to the petitioner to appear in the examination, it would be contrary to the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which no court can afford. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. August 30, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE