NARINDER KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether to a holder of a gracious vacancy, a right is conferred to a post and whether the possession of higher qualifications simplictor with some past experience would clothe a right upon an individual to lay a claim to the post, are two short points which require determination in the present writ petition filed by Shri Narinder Kumar under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India vide which he has prayed for the quashment of the selection order dated 1.9.1997 Annexure P.19 giving challenge to the selection and appointments of respondents No. 5 to 8 ?

(2.) The petitioner claims that he is a Matriculate and that he served on different occasions as Process Server on the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Hisar when he was appointed as Process Server in the leave vacancy firstly in the year 1997 and he worked against leave vacancy upto 15.3.1997. Intermittently and for short intervals he worked as Process Server upto 6.6.1998 and his total period of work came to 18 months as Process Server. An advertisement for recruitment on 16 posts of Process Server was issued by the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Hisar and the petitioner admittedly competed and appeared before the Selection Committee which finally selected 16 candidates for the posts of Process Servers on 1.9.1997 but the name of the petitioner does not figure in the selection list which reveals that five persons were selected as Process Servers who possessed qualification lower than that of the petitioner. Four persons belonging to the General category were either under-Matriculate or they had read upto 9th class and one candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category had passed his Middle Examination. The case set up by the petitioner is that since he had better qualification than that of Sarvshri Mohinder Kumar, Rohtash Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Inder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, respondents No. 4 to 8 and that he had an experience of 18 months to his credit, therefore, he had preferential right of consideration to the post of Process Server than that of these respondents. We have stated at the outset of this order whether the higher qualification per se with short experience gave an indefeasible right to the petitioner to lay claim and whether a person who only works against leave vacancy has better claim than that of the persons whose performance during the course of interview is superior and is better than that of the person possessing such higher qualification etc. ? Our considered answer is in the negative. Ours is time of competition and then selection. Performance of an individual during the course of interview would always be a predominant factor for the selection. Higher qualification no doubt is plus point for a candidate but the selectors are the best judges to determine the suitability of a candidate. The petitioner has nowhere alleged in the writ petition that the appointing authority had acted in an arbitrary manner. No allegations have been levelled against the members of the selection committee or against the appointing authority that they had acted in a bias or vindictive manner so as to ignore the claim of the petitioner. In the absence of any mala fides it may be difficult to conclude that selection of respondents No. 4 to 8 which was based on their performance during the course of interview was bad. The petitioner was only working against the leave vacancy. In other words, he was enjoying the fortuitous vacancy. It did not confer him any right to a post. He applied like others and he was also interviewed like others. On his performance, he was not selected. In these circumstances, we do not see any wrong in the mode of selection.

(3.) Faced with this difficulty, an effort was made by the counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mahajan that one post of Process Server is still lying vacant against which the petitioner can be adjusted. The argument is totally devoid of any merit. The acceptance of this plea of the petitioner would certainly put him on the advantageous position. If there is any post of Process Server which has not been filled or that it has arisen subsequently to the selection, against that post the others have also the right to compete. We are of the considered opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed in limine and we order accordingly. No order as to costs.