MUKESH SHARMA Vs. GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are CWPs No. 11770, 16518, 16359 and 12092 all of 1997 which shall be disposed of through one common judgment as same question of law and fact is involved therein.

(2.) In CWP 11770 of 1997, Mukesh Sharma petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondents 4 to 6 to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in the Guru Jambheshwar University, Hissar effected by respondents 1 to 3. It has been alleged that petitioner Mukesh Sharma was appointed Clerk-cum-Attendant vide appointment letter dated 20.2.1996 Annexure PI and is continuing till date. Respondent- University advertised 49 posts of Clerk-cum-Typists vide advertisement notice Annexure P3. In response to the advertisement Annexure P3, he applied for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist on 20.2.1996 as he was fulfilling the requisite qualifications set down for the post. Seven thousand candidates applied. Out of them 183 candidates qualified in the type test. In the advertisement 30 words per minute (in short WPM) was prescribed as minimum speed in typing. He was one of the successful candidates who qualified type test. He gave 58 WPM in typing at the time of test. He was called for interview. Interview was only a farce inasmuch as only the name of the candidate, his fathers name and village were asked. Interview took hardly 2-3 minutes per candidate. On 7.8.97, he appeared for interview along with other candidates who had qualified. For reasons best known to respondent No. 3, the petitioner alone was put to type test over again. He appeared for the type test though there was swelling and injuries on his right hand and other parts of body due to scooter accident. His right wrist was bandaged with crepe bandage. After first aid, the doctor had advised him rest for 3 weeks. On 8.8.97 at 11.30 p.m., 7 candidates were declared selected by the interview board. Respondents 4 and 5 were selected although they had not cleared the type test and had not figured among 183 candidates. They had not been called even for interview. They were selected because of their closeness to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 belongs to Yamuna Nagar whereas respondent No. 2 was Principal in Mukand Lal Engineering College, Yamuna Nagar before a joining as Vice Chancellor. Respondent No. 5 was selected because he belongs to Kurukshetra where respondent No. 2 was earlier Pro Vice-Chancellor. Petitioner was denied appointment because he was put to type test over again though there was no reason to put him to type test over again and further his right hand was lying bandaged due to scooter accident and he was not in a position to undertake type test. It was arbitrary on the part of respondents 1 to 3 to include those candidates in the selection list though they had not been called for interview and had not even qualified. Employer did not have absolute authority to deny appointment to a selected candidate and offer appointment to one who had not even qualified. Surinder Singh, respondent No. 6 was declared successful and appointed. He may be put to type test over again along with the petitioner to judge their performance. Selection was finalised on 8.8.97 at 11.30 p.m. and the selected candidates joined the following day. Petitioners performance at type test was much better than the performance of respondents 4, 5 and 6. Still the petitioner was not selected which shows arbitrariness on the part of the members of the selection committee. It is true that mere selection does not confer any right upon the selected candidate to be appointed on a particular post but at the same time, while making appointments, the appointing authority shall not make such appointments by travelling beyond the selection list. While making appointments ranking given in the selection list shall be adhered to. Result of the interview was not published. Marks were awarded in the interview according to the whims of the members of the selection committee. Persons securing less marks and occupying position below have been appointed. Petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the selection of respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. In fact he has challenged the entire selection.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 contested the writ petition urging that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis for a period of 89 days and he joined on 20.2.1996. He was relieved on 13.8.97 after the regularly selected candidates had joined. For recruitment of Clerk-cum-Typists, the Vice Chancellor constituted Selection Committee. Among other qualifications, candidate was required to have speed of 30 w.p.m. in typing. Type test was arranged for all the candidates who had applied for the test. Petitioner appeared in the type test on 5.7.97 and showed speed of 58 w.p.m. When the result was out, it was pointed out by many that the petitioner could not pass the type test with a speed of 58 w.p.m. as he had very little knowledge of typing. Respondent No. 3 put up a note in this regard and suspicion was raised at the petitioners passing type test. It was ordered by the Registrar that the petitioner be put to a surprise type test on 7.8.97. When he appears before the selection committee for interview. He was accordingly put to a type test by the selection committee on 7.8.97. There were numerous mistakes in the type script and his performance was declared poor. FIR No. 1228 dated 17.11.97 was registered on the recommendation of the selection committee that it appeared to be a case of impersonation. Respondent No. 6 had cleared the type test at the speed of 32.8 wpm. It was denied that the type speed of respondents 4 and 5 was only 29 wpm. Their typing speed was 31.76 and 30.4 wpm respectively. Respondent No. 5,6 and 8 Were allowed to appear in the type test in pursuance of the orders of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hissar. Signatures of the candidates were taken on the signatures chart and on the type scripts. Signatures of the petitioner did not tally and therefore it was felt that there was impersonation. It was in these circumstances that he was put to type test over again.