SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 5691 and 4191 of 2005 and 10225 of 2006 as they involve similar facts and same questions of law.

(2.) The petitioner Sandeep Kumar in CWP No. 5691 of 2005 and petitioners Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar in CWP No. 4191 of 2005 in response to an advertisement issued by the respondents in the month of November 2003 applied for the post of Constables in the Indian Reserve Battalion ('IRB' - for short) with registration Nos. 608 and 1410 and 862 respectively. The petitioner Pardeep Kumar in CWP No. 10225 of 2006 also applied for the post of Constable in the IRB. The advertisement was issued for recruitment in respect of 740 posts of Constables in the IRB out of which 648 posts were for general duty constables. The last date for submitting applications was 15.12.2003. The recruitment was to be made at two centres for IRB at Gurgaon and for the Railways at Ambala. Before the physical test for selection could be held the elections to the Lok Sabha were notified on 17.12.2004 by the Election Commission of India. In view of the elections being announced, the model code of conduct for holding elections came into effect. The elections to the Lok Sabha were held in the month of April/May 2004 and the code of conduct came to an end in the month of May 2004. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar in CWP No. 5691 of 2005 and petitioners Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar in CWP No. 4191 of 2005 were thereafter in July 2004 called for physical efficiency test. They passed the said test and were interviewed in August 2004. The petitioner Pardeep Kumar in CWP No. 10225 of 2006 was also vide letter dated 14.8.2004 called for interview on 5.9.2004 along with his original certificates etc. The result of the selection was announced on 9.10.2004 and the petitioner Sandeep Kumar was placed at serial No. 4 in the waiting list of the Ambala Board. The petitioners Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar were placed at serial Nos. 2 and 5 respectively of the waiting list of the Gurgaon Board. The name of petitioner Pardeep Kumar also figured in the waiting list under Roll No. 1050 at serial No. 2 of the waiting list of Ambala Board. The cases of the candidates at serial Nos. 1 to 10 in the waiting lists were sent to the Director General of Police, Haryana for his approval as candidature of some candidates who had appeared in the selection process was cancelled on the ground of making concealment of material facts in the relevant columns of the applications seeking appointment. In December 2004, the Director General of Police Haryana it is stated gave his approval for appointment of the petitioners Sandeep Kumar and Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar was thus selected for the post of Constable in IRB vide teleprinter message dated 8.10.2004 and letter dated 17.12.2004. The petitioners Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar were also similarly selected vide teleprinter message dated 27.12.2004. The Commandant 2nd Battalion, IRB/C sought the medical examination reports, character antecedents verification reports in respect of the said petitioners. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar was found medically fit by the Chief Medical Officer, Rewari vide certificate dated 30.12.2004. Similarly, the petitioners Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar were found medically fit by the Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon vide certificate dated 29.12.2004 submitted to the Commandant in Form No. 10.64. The petitioner Pardeep Kumar also states that he was selected by the respondent-Department and his name figures in the list of selected candidates in the waiting list under Roll No. 1050 at serial No. 2 of the Ambala Board. However, the petitioners were not appointed because in the meantime on 17.12.2004 the elections to the Haryana State Assembly were notified and the model code of conduct for holding elections had again come into operation. On account of the coming into effect of the said code of conduct, the petitioners were not given constabulary numbers. The petitioners, therefore, in their respective petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek directions for calling for the records of the respondents concerning their selection as Constables in IRB in the recruitment process and after perusal of the record a direction be issued to the respondents to allow them to assume their duties as Constables by issuing them the constabulary numbers as most of the Constables have already been allowed to join their duties. The petitioner Pardeep Kumar in view of the model code of conduct for holding elections coming into force filed CWP No. 19578 of 2005 in this Court seeking a direction for his appointment on the post of Constable with all consequential benefits as he stood duly selected and even his medical examination was conducted. A Division Bench of this Court on 16.12.2005 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition filed by Pardeep Kumar with a direction to treat the legal notice (Annexure P-5 with CWP No. 19578 of 2005) as a representation and take a decision thereon. It was also directed that in case the petitioner's (Pardeep Kumar's) claim was to be denied, reasons therefor should be given in the order itself and communicated to him. In compliance to the said order dated 16.12.2005, the Commandant 2nd Battalion IRB, Bhondsi, Gurgaon vide order dated 3.5.2006 declined the claim of the petitioner by observing that his claim cannot be acceded to at this stage as some similar situated candidates who were at serial Nos. 2 and 5 of the waiting list of the Gurgaon Board had filed CWP No. 4191 of 2005, titled as Kanwar Baljeet Singh v. State of Haryana. The petitioner Pardeep Kumar seeks quashing of the said order dated 3.5.2006 whereby his claim has been rejected on the ground that the writ petition of similarly situated persons is pending.

(3.) On notice of motion, written statements have been filed in Sandeeep Kumar's (CWP No. 5691 of 2005) and Kanwar Baljeet Singh's case (CWP No. 4191 of 2005) by the Commandant 2nd IRB, Bhondsi, Gurgaon (respondent No. 4) on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. No reply has been filed in Pardeep Kumar's case (CWP No. 10225 of 2006). It is stated in the replies that have been filed that the present petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that 740 posts of Constables for recruitment against sanctioned strength of first and second India Reserve Battalion/C (Gurgaon) were advertised and recruitment process was stated w.e.f. 15.12.2003 through two Selection Boards at Gurgaon and Ambala. The selection process was completed and result was declared on 9.10.2004 by the Selection Boards. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar in CWP No. 5691 of 2005 is at serial No. 4 on the waiting list of the Ambala Board in the general category candidates. The petitioners Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar in CWP No. 4191 of 2005 are at serial Nos. 2 and 5 respectively on the waiting list of Gurgaon Board in general category candidates. The petitioner Sandeep Kumar who is on the waiting list at serial No. 4 of the Ambala Board in general category, it is stated, can be considered only after considering the claim of persons at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the waiting list of the same Board in the same category. Similarly, it is stated that candidates who are in the waiting list at serial Nos. 2 and 5 respectively of the Gurgaon Board in general category i.e. petitioners Kanwar Baljeet Singh and Raman Kumar can be considered only after considering the claims of persons senior to them on the waiting list of the same Board in the same category. Besides, it is submitted that the candidates who were selected and were denied appointments due to various reasons like criminal cases pending against them had submitted representations/appeals with the authorities. Some of them have also approached the Courts seeking redressal of their grievance. Claim of the petitioners can be considered only after representation/appeals pending against the rejection of the selected candidates at the stage of character verification etc. are disposed of. The consideration of appointment of candidates on the waiting list would also depend on the judicial verdict in the litigation initiated by the rejected candidates in the Courts. It is denied that the name of the respective petitioners were specifically recommended for appointment. A general permission was taken by respondent No. 4 from the Director General of Police (respondent No. 2) for appointment of the waiting list candidates against those selected candidates whose character and antecedents were not found good during the verification process. However, the appointment of the waiting list candidates, it is stated, is a matter which depends on final rejection of selected candidates. It is, however, accepted that the petitioners were found medically fit by the Chief Medical Officer. Besides, it is stated that no waiting list candidate has been given appointment.