RATTAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the selection for recruitment to the posts of Conductors and Drivers in the Haryana Roadways made on December 23/24, 1993, in conformity with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India This is the short question that arises for consideration in these two civil writ petition Nos. 1729 and 1730 of 1994. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) In the beginning of December 1993, the employees of the Transport Department, Haryana went on strike. This strike was declared illegal. As a result, nearly 2200 employees of the Haryana Roadways who had gone on strike were dismissed from service. Resultantly, the transport services in the State were paralysed. To mitigate the hardship to the travelling public and to provide some facilities of transport, it became necessary to make immediate recruitment. In this process, various persons including the petitioners were recruited in the Jind Depot of the Haryana Roadways. On December 20/21, 1993, the strike was called off. The State Government decided that all the dismissed employees be reinstated. As a result, the services of the persons recruited during the period of strike were terminated. The services of the petitioners who had joined their respective posts on December 7, 1993, were terminated on December 21, 1993. Consequently, the persons who had been recruited during the period of strike (about 1500) became surplus. Their retention in service would have meant recurring extra expenditure of about Rs. 3 crore every year. In this situation, it was decided that 330 drivers and 190 conductors should be selected and appointed out of them. Since proper selection could not possibly have been made at the time of recruitment during the period of strike, it was considered desirable "to get all the individuals tested by a committee of senior officers." Consequently, a selection committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional State Transport Controller (C) was constituted to interview the candidates and to select the most efficient and suitable ones from amongst them. This committee met on December 23 and December 24, 1993. It prepared lists of selected candidates. Respondents Nos. 6 to 18 in CWP No. 1729 of 1994 who were selected as conductors and respondent Nos. 5 to 14 in CWP No. 1730 of 1994 who were selected as drivers, were included in these lists. The petitioners claim that in fact no information was sent by the selection committee to the candidates. No letters calling upon them to appear in the interview were issued. Only such candidates as were present by chance were interviewed by the selection committee. No criterion for determining inter se merit was laid down. It is also alleged that persons who were close relations of a member of the selection committee viz. Mr. M.S. Ahlawat, Deputy Transport Controller were also selected in spite of the fact that they were not even eligible to be considered. Accordingly, the petitioners assert that the selection is wholly violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondents contest this. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by the Additional State Transport Controller (C). It has been inter alia averred that the selection committee "interviewed the candidate who had worked during the strike on the posts of conductors in Haryana Roadways, Jind depot on 23.12.1993. Regarding the remaining candidates, who could not be selected by the selection committee, General Manager, Haryana Roadways Jind was directed to prepare a seniority list of such persons on the basis of their joining - all the candidates were informed about the date and place of their interviews by the office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind at the time of termination of their services . The selection was made "keeping in view their educational qualification and suitability in all respects." It has been further averred that out of a total 218 candidates, as many as 200 had actually appeared for interview which falsifies "the contention of the petitioners that all the candidates were not informed about the date of their interview." It has also been pointed out that even two of the petitioners had been duly interviewed.