KULDEEP SINGH DAHIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court, impugning the selection criteria adopted by the respondents for filling up the posts of Trade Instructors in the Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Haryana and as a consequence thereof the subsequent selection and appointment made in pursuance thereof. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the respondents could not have resorted to the shortlisting of the candidates for the purpose of interview, especially when the said aspect was neither mentioned in the advertisement nor do the statutory rules provide for the same. He, on this basis, contends that the selection and the criteria adopted by the respondents, thus, cannot sustain. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar and others v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and others, : (2003) 3 SCC 548 and Dilip Kumar Ghosh and others v. Chairman and others, : (2005) 7 SCC 567. While relying upon the said judgments, counsel for the petitioners contends that action of the Selection Committee in shortlisting the candidates is not sustainable.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the selected candidates have not been impleaded as party respondents. He, therefore, contends that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ku. Rashmi Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors., : 2006 (12) SCC 724. His further contention is that the shortlisting can be resorted to by the Selection Committee even in the absence of any statutory rules or instructions. Further even there is no mention in this regard in the advertisement. He contends that where large number of applications are received, which are unmanageable and, therefore, the resort to the said shortlisting would be justified. He in this regard has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B. Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi v. Union of India and others, : (2008) 1 SCC 362, where such a process of shortlisting has been accepted to be a justifiable norm. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.