RAM DIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to appear in the interview despite the call letter issued by the respondents is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The name of the petitioner is registered with the Employment Exchange, Pundri, Kaithal. His name was sponsored for appointment on the post of Health Assistant (Seasonal). According to the requisition received by the Employment Exchange , Kaithal from the Civil Surgeon, Kaithal ( Annexure R/1) it has been clearly specified that five posts of Health Assistants -Swasthyasahayak( Seasonal)for a period of 3 months were required to be filled. A requisition was sent on 7/6/2005 in compliance to the provisions of Section 4 of the Employment Exchange Compulsory Notification of Vacancies Act,1959. The nature of the vacancies is seasonal and the type of work required to be handled was fogging operation of malathion technical. The date of interview was specified to be 24/6/2005. However, respondents asked the petitioner to appear for interview on 4/7/2005 before the Civil Surgeon, Kaithal (respondent no.2). When the petitioner appeared before the Civil Surgeon, Kaithal on 4.7.2005 he was intimated that the interview had already taken place on 26/4/2005 and nothing could be done.

(2.) In the written statement filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 the aforementioned factual position has been conceded. It has been averred that the requisition was sent on 7/6/2005 by clearly specifying the date of interview to be 24/6/2005 ( Annexure R.1). As per the policy of the State Government the general seniority list of Swasthyasahayak ( Sanitary Supervisor) has been maintained by taking the year 1998 as the base year. The selection is always made as per the seniority list of the candidates sponsored by the District Employment Officer. A copy of the policy dated 7/5/1991 has been placed on record as Annexure R.2. Accordingly interviews in the office of respondent no.2 were held on 24/6/2005 when 32 persons appeared. However, five of them were selected for a period of 3 months w.e.f. 1/7/2005 to 15/10/2005 on the basis of seniority. The spray work was extended for 15 days and on 31/10/2005 all the spray staff was relieved. In a separate written statement filed by respondent no.3, namely Assistant Employment Officer, Pundri has taken the stand that no intimation with regard to the requisition was received. It has been explained that when some of the applicants registered with the Employment Exchange, Pundri approached the District Employment Officer, Kaithal it was revealed that the requisition never reached the Employment Exchange, Pundri and asuch the District Employment Officer requested respondent no.2 to conduct the interview of the petitioner alongwith others on 4/7/2005 and similarly asked the Assistant employment Officer, Pundri to sponsor the names of eligible persons including the petitioner for interview on 4/7/2005. A copy of the request as sent by the district Employment Officer, Kaithal for appearing for interview on 4/7/2005 has been placed on record as Annexure R.3. However, respondent no.2 did not interview the petitioner nor any other candidate.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been negligent in the performance of their official duties. Respondent no.2 should have ensured that the rquisition had gone within a reasonable time to respondent no.3. If the requisition had not been received before the date of the interview i.e. 24/6/2005 then in the absence of any extension of the date of interview the petitioner and other persons should not have been asked to appear for interview before respondent no.2 on 4/7/2005 unless it was ensured by respondent no.3 that Civil Surgeon (respondent no.2) was keen to held the interview of the petitioner alongwith others. However, redeeming feature in the present case is that those who were selected for a period of 3 months stands already relieved on 31/10/2005 and the posts are to be filled up again as per the requirements. The afore-mentioned position is evident from the order dated 11/11/2005 (Annexure R.2). Therefore, it would not be prudent to go into the question of selection of those who have already been relieved. Moreover, the selected candidates have also not been impleaded as party respondents as per the requirement of law as laid down in Khetarbasi Biswal v. Ajaya Kumar Baral and others 2004(1) SCC 317 and, therefore, it would not be proper to adjudicate on the rights of the petitioner viz.a.viz the selected candidates in their absence. We are further of the view that the principle of deminimis could be invoked as has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Banks' Association v. Dev Kala Consultancy Service (2004) 11 SCC 1.