High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Harjit Singh v. The Director General & Member Secretary, - CWP-2153-2004  RD-P&H 9378 (27 October 2006)
C.W.P. No.2153 of 2004
Date of decision:26.10.2006
The Director General & Member Secretary, Indian Council of Social Science Research and others
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Nijjar, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Present: Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D. Prasad and Ms. Aman Sibia, Advocates for respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3.
Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for respondent No.4.
The petitioner was a candidate for consideration for appointment for the post of Lower Division Clerk which was advertised on 23.10.2003.
His grievance in the present petition is that in the test that was held he was not provided a typewriter and was asked to type on a computer key board.
This is despite the fact that it was mentioned in the advertisement that the C.W.P. No.2153/2004
office would provide typewriters and if the candidates desired to bring their own typewriters it would be permissible.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Administrative Officer of the Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi (respondent No.1) (`Council' for short) it is stated that the candidates when they came to the venue of the test they were asked the option whether they would prefer to take test on computer since most of the institutes were imparting training in the use of computer and the key board of the typewriter and the computer is similar. All the candidates who had come for the test opted to take the test on computers except the petitioner who refused to appear in the test or take the test even though he was given the option to take the test on a typewriter.
It is further stated that there was no protest or demur from any other candidate. Except for the petitioner all the other candidates opted for taking the test on computers. There is no replication to the said written statement of respondent No.1.
Keeping in view the fact that the averments made in the written statement have not been controverted it is evident that the petitioner was given an option to take the type test on a typewriter and he refused to appear in the test. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the action of the Council giving the option to the candidates who had come for recruitment for the post of Lower Division Clerk to take the test on computer key board. The respondent No.1-Council has on the request of all the candidates except the petitioner taken the type test on computer key board. The petitioner having failed to participate in the selection process can possibly have no grievance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that in fact respondent No.4, who has been appointed, is overage and does not have the necessary type speed. Therefore, it is submitted that his appointment is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 as also respondent No.4 have defended the appointment of respondent No.4. It is stated that respondent No.4 has been working in the institution on the same post since 2.7.2002. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has further submitted that his continuation on the post since 2.7.2002 may not be treated as overage because at the time of initial appointment he was not more than 28 years of age which is the maximum age in terms of the advertisement (Annexure-P.1).
A perusal of the pleadings and the prayer made by the petitioner would show that there is no pleading or specific prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the appointment of respondent No.4. It is during the pendency of the petition that two civil miscellaneous applications were filed by the petitioner for placing on record Annexure-P.5 and for impleading the selected candidate i.e. respondent No.4 as a respondent in the petition. The said civil miscellaneous application for impleading respondent No.4 was allowed by this Court on 29.7.2005. On notice respondent No.4 has filed his reply.
A perusal of Annexure-P.5 which is mentioned as the list of ineligible candidates would show that respondent No.4 has been indicated as "overage and no typing speed". However, in the absence of any pleadings and prayer made by the petitioner in his writ petition, it is not for this Court C.W.P. No.2153/2004
to set aside the selection and appointment of respondent No.4. The petitioner did not amend his writ petition praying for quashing the selection and appointment of respondent No.4. Even otherwise, as has already been observed, the petitioner has no grievance in the selection process inasmuch as he himself did not sit and participate in the type test for consideration for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk even though he was offered to take the test on a typewriter, which was his primary grievance. Therefore, he is in the position of a third party insofar as the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 is concerned. He, as such, has no locus standi to canvass with respect to the legality or correctness of the appointment of respondent No.4.
For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Acting Chief Justice
October 26, 2006. (S.S. Saron)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.