LPA No.355 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 355 of 2009 in CWP No.4163 of 2007 Date of decision: 11.5.2009 Saroj ....Appellant vs. Sulochna and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. --- Present: Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the appellant. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Through the instant appeal the appellant is seeking to impugn the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.2.2009, whereby he allowed CWP No.4163 of 2007, and set aside the selection process conducted by the authorities for the post of Anganwari Worker in village Machhrouli, Tehsil Samalkha District Panipat. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has raised as many as six submissions. The submissions advanced before us are being summarised in the succeeding paragraphs. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is, that the sequence of facts narrated in the writ petition do not even make an allegation about the violation of the prescribed criteria in finalising the selection process. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence thereof, questioning the marks awarded to individual candidates is wholly unjustified. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the LPA No.355 of 2009 2 appellant is being compared with a wrong person, inasmuch as, the comparison of the appellant with Sulochna petitioner No.1, is unjustified because petitioner No.1 Sulochna was a candidate who had participated in the process of selection from the general category, whereas, the appellant herein, was a candidate from the reserved Scheduled Caste category. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that petitioner No.1 Sulochna has since been selected and appointed, therefore, the comparison of the appellant with Sulochna, was absolutely irrelevant. The third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the learned Single Judge was persuaded to accept even allegations of mala fides as the basis for selection process. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the following allegations levelled in the writ petition:- “ That in this bias selection process of village Machhrouli, the respondent No.3 to 6 have played a major role because the respondent No.6 is real uncle of Husband of respondent No.7, who is working as Clerk with respondent No.4. The respondent No.5 is uncle (Fufa) of respondent No.7 and working as Clerk in the office of respondent no.3. Hence this hostile discrimination has been done with the meritorious candidate like the petitioner”. As against the aforesaid allegations, the response of the respondents in their written statement was to the following effect:- “That Para No.17 of Petition is wrong and denied. It is denied that selection process of Anganwari Worker of village Machhrauli was biased and Resp.No. 3 to 6 have played a major role. It is denied for want of knowledge regarding the family relation of Respondent No.7. However, it is admitted that Resp No.5 is working in the office of CDPO Panipat (U) as LPA No.355 of 2009 3 assistant and Resp.No.6 is working in the office of Resp,No.4 as mentioned in petition. It is denied that hostile discrimination has been done with the meritorious candidates petitions. The selection has been made by the Selection Committee by following the proper procedure”. Whereas the appellant in her reply asserted as under:- “ That in reply to para no.17 it is submitted that all the allegations are wrong and based on just flimsy ground, only because of the selection of answering respondent.” It is the vehement submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that since the allegations of mala fides had been denied, in the absence of those referred to in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it was wholly unjustified for the learned Single Judge to set aside the selection process on the allegations which were expressly denied. The fourth contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that even members of the Selection Committee were not impleaded as party respondents. It is, therefore, submitted that no allegations could be deemed to have been levelled against the members of the Selection Committee. In the absence of any allegation against individual members of the Selection Committee, it was wholly unjustified for the learned Single Judge to set aside the process of selection. The fifth contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Selection Committee comprised of independent members could not have been influenced by persons of the stature referred to in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, and as such, the determination of the learned Single Judge cannot be deemed to be a valid and justified determination. Lastly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the petitioners in CWP No.4163 of 2007 having participated in the process of selection had no right whatsoever to assail the aforesaid process of selection. LPA No.355 of 2009 4 Having perused the judgment awarded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that two primary conclusions were drawn therein. The first of the aforesaid conclusion was on the basis of the comparative marks awarded to the candidates. Relevant extract of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge on the first issue is being reproduced hereunder:- “... In the objective part of the selection process, petitioner No.1 obtained 60% marks, petitioner No.2 obtained 53% marks, while respondent No.7 obtained 48% marks. However, petitioner No.1 got 4/10 marks in the interview, petitioner No.2 got 2/10 marks, while respondent No.7 was awarded 9/10 marks. It may also be mentioned here that no other candidate got more than four out of ten marks in the interview. It is relevant to mention here that both petitioner No.2 and respondent no.7 are S.C. candidates”. The second aspect of the matter dealt with by the learned Single Judge pertain to the allegations of mala fides. In this behalf, the observations of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order were to the following effect:- “.. respondent no.7 was given nine out of ten marks only because of her proximity to respondents No.5 and 6 who are working as Clerks in the office of respondents No.3 and 4 ( who were members of the selection committee) respectively. It is further to be noted that as per the record produced by the respondents themselves, petitioner No.1 had obtained total of 64% marks as against respondent No.7 who had obtained total of 57% marks”. The nexus of respondent No.7 i.e., the appellant before this Court was pointedly, as against persons depicted in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. In so far as the relationship is concerned, the extract from the written LPA No.355 of 2009 5 statement filed by the official respondents reveals, that the same were denied for want of knowledge. However, such a denial was not possible at the hands of the appellant. In so far as the written statement filed by the appellant as respondent No.7 in response to the averments made in paragraph 17 of the writ petition is concerned, the same do not reveal an express denial of the relationship depicted therein in terms of the mandate of Order V rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relationship alleged between the persons referred to in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, and the appellant in her capacity as respondent No.7 must, therefore, be deemed to be admitted. Thus viewed, it is imperative for us to accept the allegations of mala fides based on the relationship expressed in paragraph 17, which was not denied at the hands of the appellant in her capacity as respondent No.7. In view of the two conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge, extracted hereinabove, and the absence of denial of relationship between the named persons and the appellant ( as respondent No.7), we are of the view, that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in setting aside the process of selections. Other submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, as have been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, pale into insignificance in view of our aforesaid conclusions. Dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge ( Uma Nath Singh ) Judge May 11, 2009 rk