IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21347 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.12.2008 Dr. Devender Chahal and others ---Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present:- Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners. K. Kannan, J. 1. The petitioners are all highly qualified persons vying for being considered to the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture in H.A.S. (Group 'A') in Agriculture Department, Haryana. Petitioners' grievances against the selection process were that they were mired in controversies such as nepotism and irregularities regarding selection of persons without inadequate qualifications. The results of the selection had been announced on 8.6.2004 and the selected candidates have been holding the posts. The challenge to the selection has been persistent in a dogged manner for all these four years. 2. The first round of litigation commenced soon after the results were announced when the appointments of respondents nos. 4 to 15 had been challenged in CWP No. 9789 of 2004 titled as 'Som Parkash and others Vs. State of Haryana and others'. After serving notice to the respondents, this Court was pleased to direct the State to conduct an inquiry and complete the same before a period of four months from the date of filing of representation from the persons affected by the selection. The petitioners are reported to have given a detailed representation, which CWP No. 21347 of 2008 -2- included, inter alia the objections regarding the non fulfilment of qualifying age of the candidates and the educational qualifications of at least 2nd Class M.Sc. in Agriculture from a recognized university alongwith five years practical experience in agriculture research or Extension or both after acquiring the minimum basic qualification. The inquiry had not been conducted admittedly within the time frame set by the High Court and on an application filed in C.M. No.4244 of 2006 in CWP No. 9789 of 2004, this Court took note of the fact that the inquiry had not been completed within the time frame and it directed that the inquiry should be undertaken by the Vigilance Department to be completed within six months. The petitioners acted with alacrity and came to this Court through a Contempt of Court Petition No. 1390 of 2006 for, what according to them, constituted deliberate disobedience of the directions given by the Court. This Court passed an order on 8th December, 2006 taking note of the fact that Vigilance inquiry had already been completed and a report had also been received, awaiting decision of the Govt. in relation to the report, this Court by itself order dated 8th December, 2006 disposed of the petition with the direction to the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana to take a final decision in the matter on or before 31st January, 2007. Admittedly, report was made known to the petitioners and the Govt. issued an order on 6.4.2007 out the details of the allegations made by the petitioners, findings of the Vigilance and the decision taken by the State Govt. 3. (i) As regards the allegations against a particular person by name Sh. Suresh Kumar the objection had been principally with regard to his age and the action that had been taken was stated in the report as the CWP No. 21347 of 2008 -3- dispute regarding the date of birth was under active consideration of the Govt. and decision in that regard was likely to be taken by the Govt. shortly. As regards the allegation that the selected candidate Sh. Suresh Kumar was relative to Sh. K.C. Bangar, Ex-Chairman of Haryana Public Service Commission, the finding of the Vigilance Committee was that he was indeed related to Sh. K.C. Bangar and he had committed an offence punishable under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by providing bogus certificates. The Vigilance Committee had recommended the action against him and the Govt. indicated that they were soon likely to take the necessary action. (ii) As regards the allegation against the selection of Sh. Atma Ram, the Vigilance inquiry revealed that his experience and qualifications as revealed by him were correct and the Govt. had, therefore, chosen to file the matter without any further action. (iii) As regards the allegation against Sh. Manjeet Singh, the Govt. had approved of the report and had decided to charge sheet the officer under Section 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. (iv) The allegation against Sh. Partap Singh was that he was not having a degree in Agriculture, which was the minimum qualification and the inquiry revealed that he had passed B.Sc from the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and later received his Ph.D. from Czechoslovakia, which was equivalent to M.Sc in India. The Govt. also chose to file the case. The charges against him were found to be not true. (v) As regards allegations against Sh. Ram Partap, the inquiry revealed nothing and the State also chose to close the file. CWP No. 21347 of 2008 -4- (vi) The selection of Sh. Chand Ram was defective according to the petitioners on the ground that he had been given undue benefit of E.S.M. Category. He was not entitled to get the benefit of that category because he had already claimed such benefit. The Vigilance inquiry revealed that the petitioner had been selected as A.D.O. in the year 1994 only by getting the benefit as dependent Ex. Service Man and the Govt. accepted the report and informed that it had decided to charge sheet the officer under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. (vii) As regards Sh. Jagir Singh the allegation was that he was not even fit to apply for the post since he possessed the degree of Forestry and not in Agriculture. The Vigilance inquiry stated that Forestry was found equivalent to Agriculture and the Govt. accepted the report. Sh. Rajesh Sihag had also been selected as an Ex. Service Man- dependent. The Vigilance inquiry stated that he was a dependent of an Ex Service Man and the choice of such a person could be made only if there were no sufficient candidates in the E.S.M. Category itself. The Govt. responded to the report stating that it had decided to obtain the comments of Haryana Public Service Commission and take appropriate action after securing its response. (4). Infact, the Govt. was taking all necessary steps pursuant to the Vigilance Report but still being unsatisfied the petitioners filed CWP No.15846 of 2007 that the Govt.'s action was inadequate and nothing short of setting aside the entire selection process could meet the ends of justice. In the writ petition, they had reiterated the serious allegation with regard to the selection of respondents nos. 4 to 15 and the writ petition CWP No. 21347 of 2008 -5- was disposed of with the direction to the Govt. to take follow up action on the basis of the recommendations of Vigilance Report within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The order had been issued on 11.10.2007 but the Govt. dealt with the subject in Inquiry No. 3 of 2005 by Memo dated 25.9.2008. The said Memo revealed that originally the requisition for selection was for 13 posts but only 12 posts were recommended for appointment on 10.6.2004 but one more recommendation of Sh. Chand Ram had been made on 23.7.2004. He had been placed under suspension w.e.f. 11.3.2008 and a charge sheet for major penalty had been issued. The Govt. had ultimately decided to take appropriate action against Dr. Som Parkash and had entrusted the inquiry at the level of Joint Secretary for looking into the charges against him. The Govt. had also given the details of the action taken against Sh. Suresh Kumar by registering a complaint in the Police Station at Panchkula for offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and that he had been kept under suspension w.e.f. 11.3.2008. Sh. Manjit Singh had also been kept under suspension for registering as a full time officer in two different places in two different capacities. As regards the complaints against Sh. Rajesh Sihag, the Govt. reported the comments being obtained from the Haryana Public Service Commission and that proper action would be taken. It found that another person by the name Sh. Naresh Kumar had applied for the post of Deputy Director as a candidate belonging to E.S.M. Category. Sh. Rajesh Sihag had also applied against this quota when he actually belonged to the category of D.E.S.M. When Sh. Naresh Kumar was not found eligible for the post, Sh. Rajesh Sihag was selected. CWP No. 21347 of 2008 -6- 5. So, it is clear that the Govt. has taken action against each one of the persons in terms of the Vigilance Report and it might not be possible to say that the Govt. had simply allowed the wrongful selection to continue at all costs. On the other hand, they were prepared to eat their humble pie, as it were, and back tracked on the selection of some of the candidates, whom they had made earlier. The Vigilance Report itself does not point out to any error in the selection process or any undue favouritism as having been practised. The wrongful selection of such candidates, who had concealed some facts or committed some offence could not vitiate the entire selection process. The petitioners who had brought to the attention of the authorities the details which were necessary to discredit some of the candidates, and the respondents have acted in full measure or in a manner which the administration thought as fit. We have already pointed out that the selection was for 13 posts and the fact that the selection of some of the candidates has been sullied, cannot render the entire selection process as invalid. The petitioners cannot seek to nullify the entire selection at this length of time, especially, after the initial appointments have been made in the year 2005 itself. The petitioner's prayer for challenging the selection in CWP No.9789 of 2004 did not meet with success beyond the point of directing an inquiry to be conducted by the orders of Court. If the petitioners had been aggrieved about the directions of this court and nothing short of annulling the entire selection process would alone meet the ends of justice, the petitioners ought to have challenged the decision of the Court even at the time when the order was passed on 20.9.2005. This court had no material at that time to cancel the entire selection process and that was why it did what was CWP No. 21347 of 2008 -7- most appropriate at that time by directing an inquiry to be conducted by the Govt. It had received the objections of the petitioner, constituted Vigilance inquiry to be held, received the report of the Vigilance Committee and put to action the recommendations of Vigilance Committee in the manner it thought fit. 6. We have already outlined the nature of report against which one of the candidates and the course of action the Govt. had taken. We have not been given the entire text of Vigilance Report but from the nature of action taken by the Govt., we are satisfied that the Govt. has left no stone unturned to go after individuals, who had perpetrated fraud on their selection pattern. We have no material before us to accept the contentions of the petitioners that there has been anything brazenly wrong in the selection process itself to require us to set aside the selection at this length of time in view of the fact that appointment orders have been issued and actions are being pursued against some of them in the manner that is legally permissible. We deem it inexpedient to set the clock back to the year 2004 when the appointments were made. We are firmly of the view that the petitioner's grievances have been fully addressed and there is no scope for starting the exercise afresh by heeding to the petitioner's prayer for a Mandamus for annulling the selection. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission itself. (MEHTAB S. GILL) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 19, 2008 lucky