Home > Haryana > Universities > Hisar > Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU)
Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar, Haryana
Hisar (District Hisar)
Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana is a University recognised by UGC. Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana is also known as Choudhury Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University.
Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU) is situated in Hisar of Haryana state (Province) in India. This data has been provided by www.punjabcolleges.com. Hisar comes under Hisar Tehsil, Hisar District.
Fax # of Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana is +91-1662-234613, 234952.
Mobile No(s) of concerned persons at Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana are 9416239506.
Website of Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana is www.hau.ernet.in, http://www.hau.nic.in.
Vice Chancellor : Dr Kishan Singh Khokhar.
Registrar : Dr R S Dalal, +91-1662- 231171-73/9294 Ext 34613, SS Dahiya.
Contact Details of Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana are : Telephone: +91-1662-234613, 227426, 231640, 231238, 227088, 284316
Vice Chancellor	:	Tel : +91-1662-231640 / 284301
Tel (Chandigarh) : +91-172-2740118, 2713613, 284301, 284342, 234613, 227426, 289532
other email id: web@hau.ernet.in, hau@hau.ren.nic.in,
Controller Exams: Dr Narender Awasthi
Dr. Yogesh Jindal, Department of Plant Breeding
CCS Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar 125 004 (Haryana) India
Ph. 919416290774
Yogesh Jindal
College of Home Science, Hisar, Haryana Dean : Dr Mrs Neelam Khetarpaul Telephone: +91-1662-237721
College of Veterinary Sciences, Hisar, Haryana. Res Phone 01662-238445. email dcovs@hau.ernet.in
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology was established in 1992. Principal of College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Hisar is Dr. Pratap Singh (Dean). Res Phone 272631
Contact Details of College of Basic Sciences and Humanities, Hisar are : Telephone: +91-1662-284310, Telephone: +91-1662-237721 Extn. 4335. Mobile No. +91-9315333991.
College of Agriculture Engg runs following courses:
Agricultural Engg.
B. Tech in Computer Science & Engg. (for women)
University Lesson Programs
Bachelor of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. & A.H.)
MBA (Agribusiness)
Master of Veterinary Sciences (M.V.Sc) in 15 specialities
Diploma Programs:
One year P.G.Diploma in Food Analysis and Quality Control.
One year P.G. Diploma in Post-Harvest Technology of Fruits and Vegetables.
Graduate programme leading to B.Sc. (Hons) in Agriculture.
Veterinary and Livestock Development Diploma (VLDD)
Post Graduate Programs:
Postgraduate programme leading to M.Sc. in Food Science and Technology.
Specialization offered in: Bioprocessing Technology, Agro-food Product Technology, Milk, Meat and Poultry Product Technology
Post graduate programmes leading to M.Sc. and Ph.D in different disciplines of agriculture
PG Diploma in Biotechnology
Research Programs:
AgroMeteorology and Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
Other departments of the University:
Department Of Agricultural Economics,
Department Of Agricultural Meteorology,
Department Of Agronomy,
Department Of Bio-Chemistry,
Department Of Bioinformatics,
Department Of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology,
Department Of Botany and Plant Physiology,
Department Of Business Management,
Department Of Chemistry and Physics,
Department Of Computer Section,
Department Of Entomology,
Department Of Extension Education,
Department Of Forestry,
Department Of Genetics,
Department Of Horticulture,
Department Of Languages and Haryanvi Culture,
Department Of Mathematics and Statistics,
Department Of Microbiology,
Department Of Nematology,
Department Of Plant Breeding,
Department Of Plant Pathology,
Department Of Seed Science and Technology,
Department Of Sociology,
Profile of Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU)
Chaudhary Charan Singh Agricultural University, popularly known as HAU, is located in Hissar (Haryana). It was initially a campus of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab. In 1966, with the division of Punjab and Haryana, HAU became an independent land grant institution. Since then, HAU has become internationally known not only for its advances in high yielding grain and cotton varieties but also for its scenic campus.
The first Vice-Chancellor of HAU, Mr. A. L. Fletcher dedicated many years of his life in making HAU one of the best known institutions in Asia. His vision and efforts, as well as his proximity to the powers that be, led to an infusion of resources for creation of world class infrastructure, laboratories and other facilities on the main campus.
At present, the Chaudhary Charan Singh Agricultural University has seven colleges: College of Agriculture, College of Agricultural Engineering, College of Animal Sciences, College of Basic Sciences, College of Home Sciences, College of Sports and College of Veterinary Sciences. In fact, HAU was the first institution of higher learning to create a separate college for sports in India. The University also has a research and training farm of over 3,000 acres (about 1,200 hectares) for faculty and students. The university recently annexed another 2,000 acres for its seed operations. The University has a faculty of well over 1,200 scientists most of whom have either been educated or trained abroad in their field of specialization.
HAU is also one of the three Indian universities to be a recipient of the recent World Bank project on Agricultural Human Resource Development. The overall project is approximately US $240 million. Under the project, about 65 faculty members and deans/directors are scheduled to visit the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. The visitors will undergo three to four-and-a-half month trainings at selected universities in these countries. The project is currently under way (July 1998) and some faculty members have already started the trainings.
This university, which was earlier known as Hissar Agricultural University (HAU), was given its present name after Chaudhary Charan Singh, a former Prime Minister of India.
Profile of University
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, one of the prestigious universities in Asia for imparting education in agriculture, popular among residents as 'HAU' was established on February 2 ,1970 by an Act of Parliament. University is situated in Hisar, one of the important and fast growing towns of modern Haryana. In ancient time Hisar was the centre of 'Harrapan Culture' .Hisar is derived from Arabic word means 'FORT'.
Hisar is just 164 kms away from National Capital New Delhi. Hisar situates on National Highway 10.
The University named after India's seventh Prime Minister Chaudhary Charan Singh. Earlier the university was part of the Punjb Agricultural University which became an autonomous institution in 1966 with the division of Punjab and Haryana.
History And Campus
HAU was initially a campus of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. After the formation of Haryana in 1966, it became an autonomous institution on February 2, 1970 through a Presidential Ordinance, later ratified as Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, 1970, passed by the Lok Sabha on March 29, 1970.
HAU has a sprawling campus that is scenic and is visited by local people for morning and evening walks. There is a central campus core formed by Fletcher Bhawan, Gandhi Bhawan, Nehru Library and Indira Gandhi Auditorium, around which the other buildings and facilities are built. The university has a total land of 29.15 km (12.91 km at the main campus at Hisar, 10.68 km Seed Production Farm at Hisar, and 5.56 km at outstations).
It has one of the best libraries in the country, the Nehru Library, which has a huge collection of 300,000 books and 700 journals. There is the Giri Centre, which is a hub for student's extra curricular activities like swimming pool, badminton court, and an indoor gymnasium. Apart from that there is a Campus Hospital, Indira Gandhi Auditorium, Farmer's hostel for visiting farmers, Residentials for both members of the faculty and students, and a Shopping centre having a post office, book stores and banks.
Images / newspaper cuttings related to Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU)
Admission Notice: 18th October, 2015
PhD in Agrilcture
Logo ne sikhe bajre se bane padarth banane ki vidhi (News)
Diploma in Human Nutrition and Dietetics (Admission Notice)
Ph D in Food Science (Admission Notice)
Campus Notes (Advertisement)
Hakrivi ko mili 50 Crore ki grant (News)
M Sc and etc (Admission Notice)
Required Deans Professors etc (Job Vacancy)
Medical Officers required (Job Vacancy)
JRE for Veterinary Students (Profile)
Project of Rs Nine Crore for HAU (News)
Hindi mandatory for foreign students (News)
Hindi compulsory for foreign students at HAU (News)
Farm Versities need more Funds (News)
Induction Training Course Ends (News)
Shivir me 335 unit Blood (News)
Administrative Cum Accounts Officer (Job Vacancy)
BSc Agriculture (Admission Notice)
Student ko mili Fellowship (News)
Kulpati ko karnal pad ki maanad upadhi (News)
B Sc Programme (Admission Notice)
HAU signs MoU with University of ILLinois (News)
HAU Group Scales Kullu Peak (News)
PhD scholar harassment case Boys support former proffessor (News)
PhD scholar accuses guide of harassment (News)
HAU signs MoU for Hybrid maize rice with 3 firms (News)
HAU signs with Oz varsity (News)
2 University men get life imprisonment for murder (News)
Construction of water channel and metalled approach roads to newly constructed houses etc (Tender)
7 Scientists get awards (News)
Electric traction passenger elevator lift (Tender)
Haryana Agricultural University ka sthapna diwas manaya (News)
Bhashan Pratiyogita me Aina First (News)
Research Associates (Job Vacancy)
MBA Course (Admission Notice)
MoU signed (Advertisement)
Public Notice related the Pensions (Public Notice)
Texture Analyser (Tender)
Renovation of six toilets and Construction of high Boundary wall etc (Tender)
Krishi vivi and Bharat Sarkar ke bich krar (News)
Dean,Principal,Librarian and Assistant Security Officer etc (Job Vacancy)
Krishi ki navintam technic par honge programme (News)
Refrigerated Plate Centrifuge and Laminar Flow (Tender)
Hakrivi kisano ko dega nai jaankari (News)
National Conference on oilseeds and Agri business camp held (Profile)
Asstt Professor,Assistant Librarian,Hostel Warden and Mali etc (Job Vacancy)
BSc,MSc and PG Diploma Courses (Admission Notice)
Senior Research Fellow and Junior Research Fellow (Job Vacancy)
Universities ko Central se mile anudan (News)
Haryana Agriculture university ki Student Canada me karegi PhD (News)
Renovation of Shed and Garages etc (Tender)
Repair of doors etc (Tender)
Fiberglass sheets and Carpentry shop etc (Tender)
Bajra ke ladduo se banegi sehat (News)
NCC cadets win laurels etc (Advertisement)
Senior Research Fellow (SRF) (Job Vacancy)
Const of Boundary wall (Tender)
Haryana Agriculture University vallo Dr Harjit Singh kalsi nu life time achievement award (News)
Meet on PPP mode (Profile)
Hakrivi ke 81 Students sammanit (News)
Underground tables and Tubular poles etc (Tender)
Public relation officer and Junior Pedologist etc (Job Vacancy)
Concession to CCS HAU pensioners for the block year 2008 11 (Public Notice)
Krishi College ne jeeta hockey match (News)
Project Scientist and JRF etc (Job Vacancy)
Dhaan ki nai kismo se Ru Ba Ru huye dhartiputtar (News)
Krishi College ki team ne jiti Championship (News)
Semi final me pashu chikitsa college jeeta (News)
Apni mango ko lekar garje krishi university pensionbhogi (News)
Haryana Krishi University me refresher course ka sampan (News)
Haryana Krishi University ne State Level par jeete 8 puraskaar (News)
Asstt Scientist and Joint Director (Job Vacancy)
Construction of Honey Extraction Room (Tender)
PhD Programme (Admission Notice)
Repair of Roads etc (Tender)
VC ne hadpi naukri (News)
Savayam sevko ko kiya sammanit (News)
HKU me Motilal Nehru ko yaad kiya (News)
Campus me sehpathiyo ne nikala maun jalus (News)
Home Science college ne jeete madel (News)
Mahilao ko di Fruits and Vegetables ki jankari (News)
Student Poonam ko mili fellowship (News)
Students ne Yogesh sihag ka kiya abhinandan (News)
Mahilao ko bataye Fruits and Vegetables ke fayde (News)
Bajra se bane utpad par lagaya camp (News)
20 desho ke pratinidhi aaj karenge Shahpur me organic form ka daura (News)
Pravatarohan club ka dal utrakhand ravana (News)
HKU me Math Day manaya (News)
HKU me 2 adhikari padonat (News)
Dr Saagwan ne jeeta rajat padak (News)
66 mahilao ne liya khilone banane ka prashikshan (News)
HKU me Youth Fest ka agaaz (News)
Vigyan sangrahlya ka kiya brahman (News)
Nibandh pratiyogita kal se (News)
Mahilao ko sikhaya tractor chalana (News)
Gehu Gyan aur Sutarkrimi jagriti diwas ayojit (News)
50 Mahilao ne sikhi vayanjan vidhi (News)
End of 5 days camp (News)
CM se milega parishad shishtmandal (News)
Global warming par Bhashan pratiyogita ka ayojan (News)
Pashupalan apnakar jeevan satar uncha utha sakte hai, Dr khatkat (News)
HKU ke 12 karmi padonat (News)
Seminar me 350 schools students juti (News)
Mashroom ki Scientist kheti ka diya prashikshan (News)
Campus School ka Annual samaroh ayojit (News)
Compition me Mahender Partap and Shaveta best khiladi (News)
Krishi College ne jeeti Championship (News)
Blood donation ke liye log agae aye (News)
Pardesh bhar me lagenge parshikshan camp (News)
HKU me Book pardarshni 9 se (News)
Twill Bags and Canvas Bags (Tender)
DIrector for Research (Job Vacancy)
Renovation of Agro Processing centre (Tender)
Extension to avail LTC (Public Notice)
HKU parshasan par bart rha udaseen raveya (News)
HKU me safai abhiyan chalaya (News)
Volkswagen riders 3, 2 se jeeta (News)
NCC Camp ke last day huye rangarang program (News)
HKU Hostel se Laptop and Mobile chori (News)
HKU me lagai jayegi Krishi udyogic pardarshni (News)
Laptop and Mobile phone chori ke 2 aropi jail bheje (News)
HKU march me kisano ko dega prashikshan (News)
HKU Students ne mahila kisano ko diya prashikshan (News)
Students ne villages ko Biogas ke prati jagruk kiya (News)
Kisan Fair for tell the more techniques to Kisans (News)
End of Animal Husbandry Program (News)
Kisam Mela 13 14 ko (News)
Kisano ka margdarshan kare Scientist, Dhankhad (News)
Fasal avshesh jalane se nikalti hai harmful gasses (News)
HKU Scientist ke bete ki hatya ke baad university me shauk ki lehar (News)
Junior Research fellow (Job Vacancy)
Madhumakhi palan camp ka samapan (News)
Kharif krishi mela aaj se hisar me (News)
Beej Agencies ke pratinidhiyo ko prashikshit karega HAU (News)
HKU mele me 36,000 kisan huye shamil (News)
Bajra vyanjan ka kiya prashikshan (News)
Folksvagon riders 3, 2 se jeeta (News)
Jinomics Science ko krishi ke sath milane par ayegi kranti (News)
Discussion on Makka kisams (News)
HKU Scientist participate in International conference (News)
Bajra ko lokpriya banane par diya bal (News)
Prashikshanarthiyo ko parman pattar vitrit (News)
Students ne lagaya jaam (News)
College se computer chori (News)
Best Teacher Award to 5 Principals (News)
Andekhi se Krishi Scientist mayus (News)
Labh Singh get best education award (News)
Benefits of Bee farming (News)
Afganisthan delegation visits HAU (News)
Repair of Community centres (Tender)
Nursery utpadan prashikshan camp me sikhaye gur (News)
College Samaroh from 22nd (News)
Kailash chatravas ne mari baji (News)
HKU pahunche kendriye krishi ayukt (News)
Online facilities for admission (News)
Annual Function (News)
Datesheet of admission exams (News)
Admission exam from 8th and 23rd (News)
Vyanjan par prashikshan 7 se (News)
Kharif beej ki bikri shuru (News)
HKU me admissions ke avedan mange (News)
Mahila Hockey League (News)
Sarso me margoja kharpatvar ka parkop badha (News)
Refresher Course on Computer Application (News)
Aavas se lakho ka samaan chori (News)
21,000 se zyada ke aye avedan (News)
University me Courses ke avedanmangeh (News)
MSc in Food Science (Admission Notice)
MoU signed for HAU food products tech (News)
Cm to open HAU tissue culture plant (News)
Chinta se ubaregi CBSE ki counselling (News)
Updation of Class (Advertisement)
Chennai Students frontrunners in plus 2 exam (News)
Govt to award Rs 1 lac to 200 meritorious Students (News)
Badal daughter made washroom her study (News)
New trance par research karne jute PU ke Student (News)
Training camp for womens (News)
Supreet ka IAS adhikari banne ka sapna (News)
JRF to 7 Students (News)
Caution instructed to awoid fire (News)
Chancellor Dr K S Khokhar visit examination centre (News)
Aag ki ghatnao ko rokne ke HKU bartega satkarta (News)
More than 11K gave admission exam (News)
Shaveta and Manisha sharma toppers of BSc honours (News)
Purchasing of Autumn harvest seeds start (News)
Tie up with companies (News)
MSc admission exam from 23 (News)
Safalta ke liye udhami bane, Saroj (News)
Inauguration of electricity sub station (News)
Seminar on Global Warming (News)
JRF (Job Vacancy)
Barish dha sakti hai kehar (News)
Training camps for agriculture (News)
Land requirement of research centre (Advertisement)
Students to Janskar valley for mountaineering (News)
Landscaping Training camp from 1st of July (News)
Maize hybrids and Bajra hybrids (Tender)
HAU maize variety to be marketed by Hyderabad company (News)
PG admission counselling from 15 (Counselling)
Tips to produce best crop (News)
Students learn tissue culture experiment (News)
PhD in Agriculture (Admission Notice)
Agri Scientist ne di kapaas keeto se bachne ki hidayat (News)
Dharna for demands (News)
Orientation program (News)
Dharna of employees (News)
Dharna of students for demands (News)
BSc course (Counselling)
Dharna of students (News)
Foundation day celebrated (News)
Students dharna on road (News)
Students met to CM (News)
Renovation of computer lab (Tender)
Special repair of buildings (Tender)
Health training camp started (News)
Computer training for SC students started (News)
Kisan Fair on next month (News)
Training camp on farming (News)
Students boycott classes (News)
Students dharna continue (News)
Students hadtal for demands (News)
Engineering college locked (News)
Plantation program (News)
Engg students end protest after CM assurance (News)
125 players run in cross country (News)
Students won Badminton championship (News)
Students get legal information in Kisan fest (News)
Kisan Fest held (News)
Sample test of vegetables held in HAU (News)
HAU dal parvatarohan ke liye ravana (News)
Pinki and Vikas elected as best athlete in basketball (News)
Sumit done top in poem (News)
Football compitition started (News)
Students gave memmoramdum to Director (News)
HAU reached final in Cricket compitition (News)
Vegetables training camp (News)
Enterpreneurship Development Programme held (Advertisement)
HAUs big leap, MoU with 38 seed companies (News)
Saang utsav held (News)
PhD in Humanities (Admission Notice)
Health training camp held (News)
Seminar on Rabbi Fasal (News)
HKU ke gehu ki murid hui 74 beej companies (News)
Intelligent students awarded (News)
Students enjoyed in Youth Fest (News)
5900 seats of B Ed extended (News)
Best teacher award for 5 HAU teachers (News)
Director of Research (Job Vacancy)
Purchase of A Twill Bags (Tender)
Purchase of GCMS Triple Quadrupole system (Tender)
Project Scientist (Job Vacancy)
Security Agencies (Tender)
Purchase of Rheometer (Tender)
Teaching posts (Job Vacancy)
Purchase of Extruder (Tender)
Process patent for check milk (News)
Students get information about wheat (News)
Renovation of main distribution system (Tender)
Teaching Assistant in Botany Department (Job Vacancy)
Fair of Agricultural Scientist held (News)
80 students honoured (News)
Varsity to hold training for women (News)
Varsity guidelines for courses (News)
HKU me jutenge 650 candidates (News)
Wheat training camp held (News)
BSc in Agriculture (Admission Notice)
6109 students gave examination for 50 seats (News)
10th pass student can also read in University (News)
20 desho ke pratinidhi aaj karenge shahpur me organic farm ka daura (News)
HKU ke dihadidar majduro ka pardarshan (News)
HAU develops two varieties of wheat (News)
Research Fair held (News)
Need to focus on farm engg, VC (News)
Renovation of street lights (Tender)
Replacement of Dorrs (Tender)
HKU safai karamchariyo ka aamarn anshan shuru (News)
Rs375 cr agri varsity budget (News)
ABVP dharna against Chancellor (News)
PhD in Agrilcture (Admission Notice)
24th convocation program held (Convocation)
Media coverage of Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana, Haryana
BHAG SINGH Versus CH CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS CWP 14868 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP 14868 of 2010 (O and M)
Decided on : 8.2.2011
Bhag Singh ....Petitioner
Ch.Charan Singh and others ....Respondents
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:-
None for the petitioner
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana
Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate for respondent-University
MAHESH GROVER, J
Learned counsel appearing for the University has brought to the notice of this Court the decision has been taken by them granting admission to the petitioner in the V and LD Diploma course on 5.2.2011 and the petitioner pursuant to the decision has also deposited the requisite fee.
In view of the above, the instant petition has been rendered
infructuous and the same is disposed of as such.
(Mahesh Grover)
SUDERSHAN KUMAR Versus CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERS Civil Writ Petition 12259 of 2010
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 2, 2011
Sudershan Kumar .....Petitioner
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar & others ....Respondents
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has retired from the service of respondent No.1 by putting in more than 31 years of service. Prior to joining his service with respondent No.1, the petitioner had served as Storeman from 8.2.1972 to 27.12.1975 in the Department of Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. As per the statute of the University, the past service of the
employee with the Central or the State Government is countable towards the service of pension. The petitioner had exercised his option for the pension scheme within the stipulated period.
However, this service is not being counted for the purpose of
pension.
As per the counsel appearing for the respondents, they had already approached the respondent-Union of India to clarify whether the petitioner had received any benefit from the service
which he rendered with the Border Security Force. In support,
attention is invited to the reply filed by the Union of India to say that a sum of Rs.2,994/- was deposited with the University on 19.11.2008.
Since the Union of India has already contributed the relevant share, the service rendered by the petitioner with the union of India is clearly countable for the purpose of his pensionary benefits by the University. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The service rendered by the petitioner with respondent-Union of India would be counted towards total service for grant of pension to the petitioner.
( RANJIT SINGH )
SAROJ DAHIYA Vs CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HAU HISAR AND OTHERS CWP 12398 of 2007
Date of Decision : 01.04.2008
Dr.Saroj Dahiya .....Petitioner
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and others .....Respondents
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Shri Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking to quash the order dated 21.7.2007, Annexure P-19, placing the petitioner under suspension and the order dated 21.7.2007, Annexure P-20, whereby the petitioner was relieved from her duties.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings, pending against the petitioner, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner will cooperate in the enquiry proceedings and that if the petitioner fails to appear on two successive dates, it shall be open to the Enquiry Officer to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents state that they have no objection to the completion of enquiry proceedings within a period of 3 months.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings
expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from today. The
petitioner shall remain bound by the statement made before this Court, in disciplinary proceedings. If the petitioner fails to appear before the Enquiry Officer on two successive hearings, it will be open to the Enquiry Officer to proceed in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
(MOHINDER PAL)
SUBHASH CHANDER BHATIA Vs THE ST OF HRY and ORS CWP 13832 of 2005
Date of Decision: March 28, 2008
Subhash Chander .....Petitioner
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1.
Shir V.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the order dated 20.8.2000 (Annexure P.10), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be reverted from the post of
Superintendent to that of Assistant.
The petitioner was initially appointed in the Regional Centre of the then Punjab Agriculture University, Hisar on 8.8.1969. Later on, the Haryana Agriculture University was created in the year 1970 and the petitioner became employee of Shri Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Accountant in the year 1975. Subsequently, the cadre of Accountant and Assistant was merged and, therefore, the petitioner became an Assistant.
The promotion from the post of Assistant is to the post of Superintendent. 75% of the posts are to be filled from amongst of Assistants on seniority-cum-merit basis, whereas the remaining 25% of the posts are to be filled on the basis of the Departmental Examination known as Higher Standard Examination. The petitioner cleared the Higher Standard Examination, but could not be promoted due to lack of sanctioned post. The University introduced a system of promotion on the ratio system somewhere in the year 1992. Under the said system, 1/4th of the total Assistants were to be promoted to the post of Superintendent. In the year 1998, the University
issued an order promoting 13 Assistants as Superintendents under the ratio
The assertion of the petitioner is that he was entitled to be placed at serial No. 11 of the said list, but was wrongly ignored. The Association of the Employees has been urging for looking into various promotions made in the University on the basis of the ratio system. The Vice Chancellor formed a committee, which reviewed the promotions made.
The Committee recommended the promotion of the petitioner to the post of
superintendent with effect from 30.9.1998 i.e. the date when the other similarly situated but juniors to the petitioner were promoted. The said
proposal of the Committee was accepted by the Vice Chancellor. The
petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent vide order dated
5.11.1999. Under the subsequent clarification on 15.1.2000, it was clarified
that the name of the petitioner shall be at Serial No. 11 of the promotions
made earlier on 30.9.1998.
On 16.11.1998, the State issued a letter to the University recommending that the ratio system of promotion should cease to exist as the pay scale of the University staff has been revised with effect from 1.1.1996. On 14.3.2005, a notice was served upon the petitioner proposing to revert the petitioner to the post of Assistant on the ground that the petitioner has been promoted on 5.11.1999 after the ratio system has ceased to exist after the communication of the State Government dated 16.11.1998.
After considering the reply filed and granting personal hearing to the petitioner, an order of reversion of the petitioner on 20.8.2005 has been
passed. The said order (AnnexureP.10), is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
It is argued by the petitioner that promotion of the petitioner was approved by the Vice Chancellor and the Board of Management and therefore, the order of reversion could not be passed. Still further, the junior of the petitioner i.e. Respondent No. 4 is still continuing in the promotional post, therefore, the vested right of the petitioner cannot be taken away on the ground that the Government has revoked the ratio system of the promotion as by promoting the petitioner, only the mistake in not promoting the petitioner earlier was rectified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the statue which were originally incorporated on 27.1.1989.
The said provisions read as under:-
"Clause 5(2)(b) of Chapter V.
All the vacancies in the ministerial cadre up to the level of superintendents shall be filled up by promotion in the following manner.
(a) 75% posts shall be filled up on the basis of seniority cum merit.
(b) 25% vacancies shall be filled up on the basis of seniority-cum-merit out of the employees in a category who have qualified the Departmental examination viz clerks/equiv. and Accountants should have passed Lower
Standard Examination and Assistants and Supdts. Should have passed Higher Standard or State SAS exam.
Seniority for this sub-clause shall be based on the date of qualifying the relevant exam."
Though the said Rules were amended later on but for the purposes of the
present writ petition, the above Rule is the relevant.
In reply to the writ petition, it has been pointed that respondent No. 4 passed the Higher Standard Examination prior to the petitioner and accordingly, he was considered senior to the petitioner and given promotion
as superintendent under the ratio system. Though the petitioner was
promoted on 5.11.1999, but the matter was referred to the State Government. Such recommendations were brought to the notice of the State Government and vide communication dated 31.8.2001, it was
communicated that the promotion of the petitioner is illegal. The Board of
Management in its meeting held on 26.1.2006 has also resolved that the
promotions made on the basis of the ratio system after 16.11.1998 were not
in order and decided to take follow up action to withdraw such promotion
and in pursuance of such decision, show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner.
Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that in the order dated 30.9.1998 (Annexure P.1), R.N.Nagpal is at serial No. 11. Shri R.N. Nagpal qualified the Higher Standard Examination in March, 1990.
Respondent No. 4 (J.L. Bhayana) is at Serial No. 12, who has qualified the
test in March, 1991. Such dates of passing of the examination have been
given by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. It is also admitted
that in the seniority of the feeder cadre, R.N. Nagpal, is senior to J.L.
Bhayana and J.L. Bhayana is senior to S.K.Pandey, who is at serial No. 13.
The petitioner has qualified the Higher Standard Examination in February,
1997 as against respondent No.4, who has qualified the said test in March,
1991. In terms of Clause 5(2)(b) of Chapter V reproduced above, it needs to be examined whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted from the date his junior respondent No.4 is promoted.
A perusal of the sub clause (b) would show that seniority for the purposes of promotion is required to be maintained on the basis of date of qualifying the relevant examination. Respondent No.4, though junior to the petitioner in the feeder cadre has qualified the test in the year 1991 as against the petitioner who qualified the test in 1997. Thus, the said respondent ranks senior to the petitioner for the purposes of promotion under the ratio system. May be he has passed the test later than R.N.Nagpal and S.K. Pandey, but date of qualification in the examination is relevant for promotion to the higher post. Once promoted to the higher cadre, the
seniority in the feeder cadre is required to be maintained. That will explain
the placement of Shri R.N. Nagpal at Serial No. 11, Shri Bhayana at Serial
No. 12 and Shri Pandey at Serial No. 13. Since the petitioner has qualified
the test much later than respondent No.4, therefore, he was not senior
enough to be promoted under the ratio system. The recommendations of
the Committee constituted for considering the claim of the petitioner for
promotion and subsequent placement at serial No. 11 will not confer any
right on the petitioner to continue on the post, if in terms of the Rules, the
petitioner was not senior and eligible to be promoted under the ratio system.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
Ashok Mann Appellant Versus The State of Haryana Criminal Appeal 457 DB of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: January 17, 2007
Ashok Mann ..Appellant
The State of Haryana ..Respondent
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA
Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. P.S.Sullar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent.
H.S.BHALLA, J.
The lights of the house of deceased Manav Marvah, a student of fourth year, Veterinary Sciences, of the Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, were switched off when he was shot dead at the hands of accused Ashok Mann and the temple of learning was converted into a platform of crime on the intervening night of 30.9.1999/1.10.1999.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.5.2002/31.5.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Further, the appellant was convicted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and he was ordered to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-. In default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, accused Kuldeep, Kapil Lamba, Raj Kumar, Ravi, Surinder and Balwant Singh were acquitted of the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 22.5.2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar.
At this stage, we would like to peep through the relevant facts available on the record of the case.
As per the prosecution version, on the intervening night of 30.9.1999/1.10.1999, the deceased was inside his room No.8-C, Aravali Hostel of the University and at that time, Munshi Ram, Security Guard of the University, was on duty. On 1.10.1999 at about 1.30 A.M., he heard the sound of fire shot from the side of that room. He went running towards room No.8-C and noticed Ashok Mann running from the side of room No.8-C. He was being followed by Manav Marvah deceased. Manav Marvah was saying that accused Ashok Mann entered his room and fired a shot upon him. He fell down in front of room No.28-C. In the meanwhile, Manav Marvah was taken on a Motor Cycle by Pawan Yadav. Many other boarders reached there. Deceased was immediately taken on a Motor Cycle by Pawan Yadav and one another boarder to the University Hospital. Thereafter, Manav Marvah was referred to Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. P.L. Verma (PW-17). The Medical Officer sent information to the Incharge, Police Post, General Hospital, Hisar and from there, he was taken to C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar, but no Medical Officer was available there and therefore, he was brought to Sapra Hospital, where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. M.R.Sapra (PW-18) and then he was referred to Post Graduate of Medical Sciences (for Short `PGIMS'), Rohtak, but he succumbed to his injuries on the way.
A verbal transmission message was sent to Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar. The information was received by Roshan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-19). On receipt of the information, he reached the hospital and collected the information. The said Inspector Roshan Lal learnt that Manav
Marvah had already been shifted to C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar. He visited the
hospital, Hisar, where he came to know that Manav Marvah had already been taken to Sapra Hospital, Hisar. After reaching Sapra Hospital, he moved an application, Ex. P-55, to the Medical Officer with regard to the condition of Manav Marvah and the Medical Officer Dr. M.R. Sapra (PW-18) opined that he was unfit to make statement. Munshi Ram, Security Guard of Aravali Hostel, met Roshan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector at Sapra Hospital.
He made his statement Ex. P-8 narrating the whole incident. On the basis of his statement and after making necessary endorsement thereon, the same was sent to Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar, for registration of the case and a formal FIR, Ex. P-14, was recorded under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act by Ram Mehar, Sub Inspector (PW-8), at 5.45 A.M. on 1.10.1999.
Roshan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-19) reached the spot along with
Munshi Ram and collected blood samples and they also found a trail of blood from room No.8-C. A fired bullet was also found from room No.8-C.
All the articles, including bullet, Ex. P-41, cement Ex. P-43, blood stains Exs. P-45 and P-51, bed sheet, Ex. P-48, chadar Ex. P-47 and cover of quilt Ex. P-49 were converted into different parcels and they were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exs. P-40, P-42, P-44, P-50 and P-47 respectively. Rough site plan, Ex. P-57, was drawn and all the seized articles were deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable, Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar.
On 1.10.1999 at 9.20 A.M., Ram Mehar, Sub Inspector (PW-8) received a wireless message from Police Post, PGIMS, Rohtak that Manav Marvah was brought dead at PGIMS, Rohtak and on receipt of this message, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added and a special report, Ex. P-16 was sent to the Area Magistrate, which was received at 11.10 A.M. Ram Mehar, Sub Inspector, (PW-8) along with other police officials reached PGIMS, Rohtak and collected necessary information and conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared report, Ex. P-5. Application, Ex. P-4, was moved to Medical Officer for post mortem examination on the dead body of Manav Marvah. Accordingly, post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Ajay Kumar Goyal (PW-2). After the post mortem examination, a parcel containing an underwear of Manav Marvah was handed over by the Medical Officer to the Investigator, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P-13. Assistant Sub Inspector Roshan Lal (PW -19) recorded the statements of Pawan Yadav (PW-1), Virender Sehrawat (PW-3) and Parveen Kumar (PW- 5). Pawan Yadav (PW-1) and Virender Sehrawat (PW-3) produced their blood stained shirts Exs. P-1 and P-2 respectively, which were taken into possession by containing them into a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Ex. P-3. During
investigation, it was found that Ashok Mann murdered Manav Marvah after
hatching a conspiracy with Kuldeep, Kapil Lamba , Raj Kumar, Ravi, Surinder and Balwant Singh, students of Veterinary Sciences of the University. On 4.10.1999, Kuldeep, Kapil Lamba, Raj Kumar and Surinder were arrested from Ekta Park, Sector 15, Hisar by Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Raj Kumar Duggal , who stepped into the witness box as PW-11. Balwant Singh accused was arrested on October 14, 1999, whereas Ashok Mann accused surrendered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hisar on 20.10.1999. During interrogation, Ashok Mann made a disclosure statement on 28.10.1999, reduced into writing, Ex. P-19, that he had kept concealed a pistol and a live cartridge near the bushes under the earth near gate No.3 of the University. The disclosure statement, Ex. P-19, was signed by Ashok Mann accused and attested by the witnesses. Accused Ashok Mann led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the pistol Ex. P-22 and a cartridge. They were converted into a sealed parcel and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. P21.
Miyan Singh, Photographer, (PW-13) took the photographs of the spot and
proved photographs and negatives. Blood, pieces of plaster along with loose sandy material of wall, fired bullet of .315", blood stained shirts of Pawan Yadav and Virender Sehrawat, blood stained bed sheet, and cover of quilt, underwear of Manav Marvah deceased and the pistol of .315" were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (for short "FSL"), Haryana, Madhuban (Karnal) and as per report of the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Exs. P-59 and P-60, the pistol Ex. P-22 was found in working order and the bullet , Ex. P-41, was fired from the same. Blood found on shirts, bed sheet, chadar and quilt cover was found of human having blood group `O' and the blood on the underwear was found of human but was found inconclusive. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented and the accused were sent up for trial.
Accused Kuldeep, Kapil Lamba, Raj Kumar, Ravi, Surinder and Balwant Singh were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Ashok Mann accused was charged under
Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 19 witnesses, namely, Pawan Yadav (PW-1), Dr. Ajay Kumar Goyal (PW-2), Virender Sehrawat (PW-3), Ashok Kumar, Constable (PW-4), Parveen Kumar (PW-5), Ranbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-6), Jagbir Singh, Head Constable (PW-7), Ram Mehar (PW-8), Raju, Draftsman (PW-9), Ramesh
Chand, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-10), Rajesh Kumar Duggal, Deputy
Superintendent of Police (PW-11), Maan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-12), Miyan Singh, Head Constable (PW-13), Dr. Sahab Singh Chandna, Senior Scientific Assistant, Incharge (PW-14), Budh Ram, Constable (PW-15), Ram Phal, Head Constable (PW-16), Dr. P.L.Verma (PW-17), Dr. M.R.Sapra (PW-18) and Roshan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-19).
Accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, denied the prosecution version and they did not lead any evidence in defence.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
It is crystal clear from the synoptical resume of the prosecution version, as disclosed above, that the case against the appellant rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and no eye-witness came forward to say that he had seen the appellant firing a shot on Manav Marvah (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence and accepted the circumstantial evidence alleged on behalf of the prosecution as correct and sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.
The question for our consideration is whether the court below is right in its view that the circumstantial evidence in the case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused? Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that even if the circumstantial evidence against the appellant is accepted as correct, it does not complete a chain of evidence and in fact, links in the chain of circumstances against the appellant are missing and the prosecution case is bound to fail and finally, he prayed that the appellant be acquitted by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar. These are the main arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, which we have to consider while deciding this appeal.
Before laying our hands on the circumstantial evidence available on the record, we would like to observe that it is well established that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and the circumstances so established, should be consistent only when the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused person; that is, the circumstances should be of such a nature as to reasonably exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. It is common ground that there is no direct evidence implicating the appellant. Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. As the case depends on circumstantial evidence, at the outset the well-established principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence is to be borne in mind. Briefly, the principles are that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence; that the circumstance relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be of an incriminating character. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
The entire case of the appellant has to be scrutinised in view of what has been discussed above.
It was also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there was no motive on the part of accused Ashok Mann to murder Manav Marvah and in the absence of motive, the appellant-accused cannot be held guilty for the offence he was charged with.
Before we lay hands on the evidence, we would like to observe with regard to motive part. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant regarding motive part is liable to be rejected and the appellant is not entitled to acquittal merely on this short ground alone, because we are of the opinion that the motive is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively remains hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that cannot be judged precisely. It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive but if it can provide to the Court for appreciating the evidence, this would be additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version. Most heinous offences are committed for petty matters and some time for no motive but the Court cannot sit idle and shift its responsibility to arrive at a particular conclusion as to who is responsible for the commission of the offence. In order to conclude with regard to the motive in this case, we would finally like to observe that motive is not deciding factor in a criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused, where direct
evidence against the accused is overwhelming.
In the instant case, a strong motive has been provided by the prosecution for the commission of the crime since earlier to this incident, Ashok Mann appellant-accused had caused injuries to Manav Marvah on August 23,
1999 and the matter was reported to the police by the deceased vide Daily Diary Report No.35 dated August 23, 1999, Ex. P-12, was recorded by the Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar in this regard. In that incident, Ashok Mann accused along with his other friends caused injuries to Manav Marvah. Even Manav Marvah was threatened with dire consequences on the point of a country made pistol and he was rescued by his friends from the clutches of Ashok Mann and his friends and then again, this incident stands admitted by accused Ashok Mann when his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, though by furnishing an explanation that he was falsely named by Manav Marvah. A Daily Diary Report, Ex. P-12, clearly spells out that there was rivalry between Ashok Mann and deceased Manav Marvah.
The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove the First Information Report, Ex. P-14, as its author Munshi Ram has not been examined by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused and also that it is a delayed FIR, is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. It is an admitted case that Manav Marvah deceased was taken from University Hostel to C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar on a motor-cycle after arranging the same by Pawan Yadav (PW-1) and Virender Sehrawat (PW- 3) and after receiving the first-aid, Manav Marvah was taken to Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he was admitted on 1.10.1999 at 2.00 A.M. and information in this regard was sent by Dr. P.L.Verma (PW-7) to Incharge, Police Post, General Hospital, Hisar. Considering the condition of Manav Marvah, his Medico-legal report was not drawn at Civil Hospital, Hisar and the doctor, after examining Manav Marvah, referred him to PGIMS, Rohtak . A number of students were present at C.M.C.Hospital, Hisar at 2.30 A.M. as borne out from document, Ex. P-54. On reaching C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar, Medical Officer present there did not provide any treatment and thereafter, Manav Marvah was brought to Sapra Hospital at about 4.00 A.M. As disclosed by Dr. M.R.Sapra (PW-18), Roshan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-19), on receipt of the information, Ex. P-54, sent by the Medical Officer Dr. P.L. Verma of Civil Hospital, Hisar (PW-17),
reached the Civil Hospital and collected the information, where he was informed that Manav Marvah had been shifted to C.M.C., Hospital, Hisar and then he went to C.M.C. Hospital, Hisar, from where he learnt that he had been shifted to Sapra Hospital. On reaching Sapra hospital, he moved an application, Ex. P-55, before Dr. M.R. Sapra at about 4.20 A.M. in order to find out if Manav Marvah was fit to make a statement, but Dr. Sapra opined, vide his opinion Ex. P55/A, that Manav Marvah was unfit to make the statement. Munshi Ram met Roshan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-19) and suffered a statement, Ex. P-8, which was completed at 5.30 A.M. and it was sent to the Police Station by Special Messenger and First Information Report, Ex. P-14, was recorded at 5.45 A.M. after about four hours and 15 minutes. The record further spells out that Manav Marvah was in a very serious condition and the effort was being made by the doctor to save his life and the witnesses had taken Manav Marvah from one hospital to another and in fact, he was taken to four hospital before finally he was shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak. Moreover, it is well settled law that FIR is not to be discarded on the ground of delay in lodging the same. The manner of occurrence has been disclosed in the FIR and the oral dying declaration also forms part of the FIR and moreover, the object of insisting upon the prompt lodging of the F.I.R to the police in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain oral information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed; the names of the culprits and the parts played by them as well as the names of the witnesses at the scene of the occurrence. In the instant case, FIR contained the names of the accused as well as oral dying declaration forms part thereof and then again we are of the opinion that delay in reporting the incident to the police is by itself not fatal to the prosecution, it is at the most a circumstance which puts the courts on guard to scrutinise the evidence on record before acting upon it. Once chance of
inflicting false story and introduction of false eye witnesses are ruled out, the mere delay in reporting the incident cannot be a ground, much less, just or sufficient to throw away the prosecution case. Every case is to be judged as per its own facts. In the instant case, occurrence took place during mid night and the deceased was being shifted from one hospital to another, therefore, the delay, if any, has been fully explained by the prosecution and there is no indication in the FIR that it could have been the result of consultation and the delay was utilised for fabricating the story. In such like cases, a computerised approach is not to be made and allowance is to be given to the human factor keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. The fact that the author of the First Information Report was given up by the prosecution as having been won over is of no help to the appellant. We would also like to observe that even if First Information Reportis not proved, it would not be a ground of acquittal since the case would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution and non-examination of the informant cannot in any manner affect the prosecution case when the evidence of eye witnesses is natural and corroborating with medical evidence. We also find that First Information Report, Ex. P-14, was recorded at 4.15 P.M. under Section 307 and 25 of the Arms Act. Ram Mehar, Sub Inspector (PW-8), received verbal transmission message, Ex. P-15, from Police Post, PGIMS, Rohtak that Manav Marvah was brought dead at PGIMS, Rohtak. Thereafter, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added and the special report, Ex. P-17, was immediately sent to the Area Magistrate, which was received by him at 11.10 A.M. The special report was reduced into writing at 9.50 A.M. and it was sent after the case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, meaning thereby that special report, Ex. P-16, ended at 9.50 A.M., which was received by the Magistrate at 11.10 A.M. The provisions contained in Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding forthwith despatch of the FIR is really designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation of a cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give proper direction under Section 159, Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, if in a given case, it is found that F.I.R. was recorded without delay and the investigating machinery was set into motion promptly, then, however, improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned it cannot itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted.
Moreover, police came into action at 2.00 A.M. on receipt of the information, Ex. P-14, sent by Medical Officer and thereafter, the Investigating Officer reached the hospital and then C.M.C. Hospital and then to Dr. Sapra's Hospital and thereafter, a special report was prepared at 9.15 A.M. and in such like circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no delay in dispatching of the First Information Report and special report to the Magistrate.
Now at this stage, we would like to scrutinise the circumstances relied upon by the prosecuction, which in the opinion of the learned Sessions judge, unquestionably point to the guilt of the accused. It is better to reproduce them so that the examination becomes pertinent, pin pointed and confined within narrow limits:-
(i) Pawan Yadav (PW-1), Virender Sehrawat (PW-3), ParveenKumar (PW-5), deceased and the accused were present in Aravali Hostel of the University on the intervening night of 30.9.1999/1.10.1999;
(ii) there was a sound of gun shot fire on the intervening night of 30.9.1999/1.10.1999. Pawan Yadav (PW-1) and Virender Sehrawat (PW-3), when they heard the sound of fire, came out of their respective rooms and noticed accused Ashok Mann, their class fellow, running in the gallery from the side of room No.8-C of Manav Marvah;
(iii) Ashok Mann was being followed by Manav Marvah crying for help and saying that accused Ashok Mann fired upon him;
(iv) Manav Marvah was drenched with blood and fell down in front of room No.28-C of Pawan Yadav (PW-1) and Virender Sehrawat (PW-3);
(v) Munshi Ram, author of FIR, reached the spot;
(vi) Pawan Yadav (PW-1) and Virender Sehrawat (PW-3) brought the injured to the hospital and their shirts were stained with blood oozing out from the injuries sustained by Manav Marvah.
(viii) All the three witnesses have deposed in a similar fashion that Manav Marvah was following Ashok Mann crying for the help and made a statement that he was shot at by accused Ashok Mann.
Disclosure statement, Ex. P-19, of the accused is with regard to concealment of pistol and live cartridges near the bushes near gate
No.3 of the University;
(ix) In pursuance of the disclosure statement, accused got recovered pistol, cartridges and fired bullet, Ex. P-41, found on the cot of Manav Marvah; and
(x) Fired bullet, as per the report, fired from the pistol Ex.P-22, by virtue of which, it was proved that pistol, Ex. P-22 was used in murdering Manav Marvah;
The question now is whether the aforesaid circumstances fully established as they are, fulfil the well recognised tests as to sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to which we have earlier referred. Are they consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant?
Keeping in view the circumstances narrated above, we would also like to scrutinise the prosecution evidence led by the prosecution through the mouth of Pawan Yadav (PW-1), Virender Sehrawat (PW-3) and Parveen Kumar (PW-5) and we find that they have deposed in a similar fashion and they are natural witnesses and their presence at the scene of crime cannot be doubted.
Pawan Yadav (PW-1) has categorically deposed that deceased Manav Marvah was his close fellow and was occupying room No.8-C in Aravali
Hostel, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and he was occupying room No. 23-C in the same hostel and on the intervening night of 30.9.1999/1.10.1999 he and Virender Sehrawat were studying in room No. 28-C. They heard a big noise.
When they came out of their room, it was about 1/1.15 A.M. and they noticed Ashok Mann, their class fellow, running in the gallery from the side of room No.8-C and he was being followed by Manav Marvah, who was crying for help saying that he had been fired at by Ashok Mann. Manav Marvah fell in front of their room No.28-C. Blood was oozing out from his body and while falling, Manav Marvah was saying that he has been shot at by Ashok Mann. They arranged the Motor Cycle of their another class-fellow and took Manav Marvah to the hospital.
The other witnesses Virender Sehrawat (PW-3) and Parveen Kumar (PW-5)
corroborated the statement of Pawan Yadav (PW-1). All these witnesses
categorically deposed that Manav Marvah disclosed that he has been shot at by Ashok Mann accused. The statements of these witnesses inspire confidence and their presence is also natural and they were cross-examined at length, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the accused. It is proved beyond doubt that Manav Marvah deceased made oral dying declaration before these three witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge rightly accepted it as given evidence to sustain conviction.
It is settled law that conviction can be solely based upon dying declaration without recording any corroboration and the oral dying declaration, in the instant case, has been made without being influenced by other and it is certainly a reliable piece of evidence. The present dying declaration is free from any vice of infirmities. It is an important piece of evidence and needs no corroboration.
The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of these three witnesses, namely Pawan Yadav (PW-1), Virender Sehrawat (PW-3) and Parveen Kumar (PW-5) and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance on the oral dying declaration. The deceased would be the last person in such a situation to implicate the appellant falsely leaving out the real culprit.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it is not safe to rely on the oral dying declaration, but it must be noted that the doctor did not categorically state that the deceased would have been unconscious immediately after the receipt of the injuries and could not have been in a position to speak even that much.
All these facts taken cumulatively form chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the murder was committed by the appellant and none else. The established circumstances do not admit of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the appellant. We, therefore, see no good ground for interference either with the conviction or sentence of the appellant. The murder was cold blooded murder of a student and there are no mitigating circumstances. The result thereof, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed.
( H.S.BHALLA )
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
PREM LATA Versus C C S HY AGL UNIVERSITY HISAR and ORS CWP 19958 of 2006
n the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
Date of Decision: 15.12.2006
Dr.(Mrs.)Prem Lata …Petitioner.
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and Others. …Respondents.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
Present: Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
M.M.KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner directed instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 22.8.2006 (Annexure P11) vide which she has been transferred from Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kurukshetra to Sirsa, just after a period of about ten months as she was posted at Kurukshetra only on 9.11.2005 (Annexure P6). She has further prayed for directing the respondents to transfer her back at Kurukshetra in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as also release her salary and arrears, which have been illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the respondents, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
For the relief claimed in the instant petition, the petitioner has already made representations dated 9.9.2006 and 6.12.2006 (Annexures P14 and P15), respectively, to the respondent No.2.
Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to take cognizance of the representations dated 9.9.2006 and 6.12.2006 (Annexures P14 and P15),
respectively, sent by the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one month, from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to him. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed.
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M.KUMAR)
(M.M.S.BEDI)
RAJENDER PARSHAD CHAWLA Versus CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HY AGL UNI HISAR CWP 13607 of 2005
Rajender Parshad Chawla …Petitioner
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and another
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
Mr. C.M. Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents.
M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be given the relief in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Ram Sarup Ganda, (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20264 of 2004, decided on 2.8.2006). It is undisputed that the rules known as Haryana Civil Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 1998, have been interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforementioned C.W.P. No. 13607 of 2005
judgment. In the case of H.R. Goel v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 7551 of 2003, decided on 7.12.2006), learned State
counsel has placed on record a copy of instructions dated 23.11.2006 for implementation of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sarup Ganda (supra) and directing all the Heads of the Departments to revise the pay scale of persons like the petitioner by stepping up the same at par with their junior.
Therefore, it is conceded position that the writ petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which also stipulate the payment of all benefits within the stipulated period and restrain the respondent State from making any recovery in case any excess amount has been paid to an employee.
Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.
The needful shall be done in accordance with the time schedule given by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court.
(M.M. KUMAR)
(M.M.S. BEDI)
ANITA PUNIA Versus CCS HAU HISAR ETC CWP 18645 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION :1.12.2006
Anita Punia ......PETITIONER
Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural, University, Hisar and others.
......RESPONDENTS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Maini, Advocate for
Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Advocate for respondents.
M.M.KUMAR,J.
It remains undisputed on facts as well as law that the matter in issue is similar to the one raised in (Jitender Kumar vs Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University,Hisar and others), which has been decided against that petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.5.2006.
The petitioner was appointed on contract basis in a project of the University in a Department of Zology in Basic Science on 27.6.1998.
On 17.1.2000 she was shifted to the Department of Plant Breeding as Senior
Research Fellow. She was again shifted to the Department of Veterinary Parasitology College of Veterinary Science in respondent-University on 7.2.2003, where she remained serving upto 30.11.2003. Still further she was shifted to the Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology in the respondent-University and has been working as a Research Associate till the date of filing the writ petition.
The stand of the respondents in the written statement is that the petitioner had worked in various projects and she was appointed as a
Research Associate in the project known as 'Genetic Improvement of Cellulolytic Fungi for Cellulase Production' in the scheme funded by DBT C(g) BMB-12 OA under the Principal Investigator Dr.Kamla Chaudhary at
a fixed and consolidated salary of Rs.8800/-+ admissible allowances as per guide-lines of the funding agency. As per terms and conditions of the petitioner's appointment as Research Associate (Annexure P-1), her
appointment was co-terminus with the project and on expiry of term of the project, she was to be relieved. The funding agency vide letter dated 24.11.2002 is stated to have intimated that the said project would be terminated w.e.f. 30.11.2005 (Annexure R-1).
Accordingly, the petitioner has been relieved from service on 30.11.2005. The facts of this case are similar to the one in CWP No.19383 of 2005, which has been dismissed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder and others vs State of Rajasthan and others (1999)2 SCC 317 wherein it has been held that when posts temporarily created for fulfilling the needs of
a particular project or scheme limited in its duration comes to an end because the need for the project comes to an end either because the need was fulfilled or the project had to be abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer cannot by a writ in the nature of Mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees. In addition, the law has also been laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others vs Uma Devi JT 2006(4) SC 420.
In view of the above, we dismiss the writ petition in view of the judgment of this Court in Rajinder's case (supra). However, we make it clear that if the project , in which the petitioner was working, is revived then she shall be considered in accordance with law by preferring her over others and `the experience acquired by her shall be considered.
( M.M.KUMAR )
( M.M.S.BEDI )
RAM JI LAL Versus C C S HRY AGRI UNIV AND ORS CWP 18822 of 2006
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
Ram Ji Lal …Petitioner.
Chaudhay Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others. …Respondents.
Mr.Ramesh Chahal, Advocate for the Petitioner.
The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant
petition is that order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure P4) passed by the D.E.O.-cum-Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, be quashed as also the order dated 8.9.2006 (Annexure P6) passed by the Vice Chancellor of the aforementioned University be also quashed. It has been pointed out that the official residential accommodation was allotted to the petitioner was found to be in possession of one Smt.Manju and the aforementioned fact was discovered during the routine checking. As a consequence thereof, show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner to which he filed his reply.
Thereafter, the impugned order dated 17.7.2006 (Annexure P4) was passed directing him to vacate the premises within 30 days and debarred him forever for the allotment of the house in the University Campus as well as in the outstations. Against the aforementioned
order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Vice Chancellor, which has also been rejected vide order dated 8.9.2006 (Annexure P6).
After hearing learned counsel, we find that the
argument has been raised disputing the fact that Smt.Manju is not the daughter of the petitioner and the daughter of the petitioner is
alleged to be in possession of the house in the show cause notice.
According to the learned counsel, the daughter of the petitioner was staying with him temporarily and therefore, it could not be said that the residential accommodation was sublet to any outsider.
Therefore, we find that there are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner has earlier filed a Civil Suit and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 12.10.2006 as the petitioner wanted to challenge the order before this Court. In our
view, that was the appropriate remedy which should have been pursued. The petitioner may apply to the concerned Civil Judge for revival of the Civil Suit by moving an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
The petition stands dismissed in the terms
aforementioned.
N K YADAV Vs CH CHARAN SINGH HRY AGIR UNIV and ANR CWP 15836 of 2006
Date of Decision: September 29, 2006
Dr. Naresh Kumar Yadava
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another …Respondents
Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to pursue the appeal, which has been filed on 26.9.2006 (P-28). Learned counsel further states that some time bound direction be issued to respondent No. 1 i.e. the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University to decide the appeal in
accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University,
CWP No. 15836 of 2006 who is stated to be the Chairman of the Board of Management being competent appellate authority, to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.
A copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.
DR DHARAM SINGH Vs CH CARAN SINGH HRY AGRI UNIV RSA 4024 of 2005
SAROJ YADAV AND OTHERS Vs CH CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY H CM 10795 of 2009
C.M.Nos.4068-69 of 2009 and
C.W.P. No. 15859 of 2004
Saroj Yadav and others .....PETITIONERS
Ch.Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others ....RESPONDENTS
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Mr.J.K. Sibal,Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vaibhav Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioners (except petitioners No.4 and 8).
Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for petitioners No.4 and 8.
Mr. Girish Agnihhotri, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioners, who are working as Research Associates in the Project entitled "AICRP on Home Science" in Chaudhary Charan Singh,
Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, have challenged the termination orders dated 1.10.2004 (Annexures P-21 to P-25).
On 21.8.2009, after hearing the counsel for the parties at length, the following order was passed:-
"During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the nonapplicant/ petitioners has referred to letter dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-29) written by the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, whereby the budget was allocated for XI Plan under AICRP on Home Science. This document shows that the project was sanctioned for 5 years i.e. upto 2011-2012. He has also referred to another letter dated 13.01.2008, again written by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, whereby as per approval of XI Plan EFC, the University was authorized to engage five Research Associates for the Project on AICRP on Home Science. The services of the petitioners, who were working in AICRP on Home Science from the last 9 years, were terminated w.e.f. 1.10.2004. He has further argued that the petitioners, who have worked upto 17.11.2008, under the interim order of this Court, may be considered against those five Research Associates for the Project on AICRP on Home
Science. He further states that out of eight petitioners, three are not interested and only five are now claiming for the said benefit.
In view of the aforesaid two documents, counsel for the applicant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeks short adjournment to have instructions in the matter.
Adjourned to 8.9.2009. Dasti on payment."
In terms of the said order, a short reply has been filed by the Registrar, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar in which it has been stated that the respondent-University will consider the case of the petitioners who have worked up to 17.11.2008 under the interim order of this Court to engage them against the five posts of Research Associates for the project on AICRP on Home Science, afresh on contractual basis subject to availability of funds and sharing of responsibility by the funding agency i.e. ICAR, and the petitioners will have no right whatsoever for any employment after the project is over.
The aforesaid offer is acceptable to the learned counsels for the petitioners. Since there are eight petitioners and only five Research Associates are to be engaged for the above project, the University will select the five petitioners as Research Associates on the basis of their seniority in the project. The University will take the decision in this regard
within a period of two months from today.
In view of this consensus position, the petition is disposed of in the same terms.
Since the main case has been disposed of, counsel for petitioners No.4 and 8 does not want to press C.M.Nos.15167 and 15177 of
2009 and the same are dismissed as such.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
HARISH KUMAR Vs HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISAR AND OTHERS CWP 2653 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
( OandM )
Harish Kumar .... PETITIONER
Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
The petitioner has filed application (CM No. 8785 of 2009) seeking permission to withdraw the instant writ petition. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition.
Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
MUNISH KUMAR Vs CH CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY H CWP 10963 of 2008
Munish Kumar .... PETITIONER
Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and others . RESPONDENTS
Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman B. Garg and Mr. Pawan Khatak, Advocates, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
The petitioner, who has applied for the post of Driver against the advertisement issued by the respondent University vide Annexure P-1, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondent University to call him for the interview for the post of Driver.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, who was fully eligible for the appointment, was not called for interview.
In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent University, it has been stated that the petitioner has not attached the experience certificate along with his application, which was mandatory and on that ground, his candidature was rejected and he was not called for interview.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the photo copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. Clause 21 of the said application indicates the documents, annexed by the petitioner with the application. In that clause, there is no mention of annexing the experience certificate by the petitioner. In view of this factual position, which has not been controverted by the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in this petition.
No merit. Dismissed.
NARESH Vs CH CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY H CWP 10992 of 2008
Naresh .... PETITIONER
The petitioner, who had applied for the post of Driver against the advertisement issued by the respondent University vide Annexure P-1, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondent University to call him for the interview for the post of Driver.
Vide interim order dated June 24, 2008, passed by this Court, the petitioner was permitted to appear for the interview subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. Accordingly, he appeared in the interview, but was not selected and respondent No.3 was selected.
In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent University, it has been disclosed that the petitioner was not having the requisite 5 years experience for driving light vehicles and by considering the claim of the petitioner and other candidates, respondent No.3 was found more meritorious and was accordingly selected. In view of this factual
position, which has not been controverted by the petitioner, I do not find any ground to interfere in this petition.
KRISHAN KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA Criminal Revision 1431 of 2002
Date of Decision: April 30, 2009
Krishan Kumar ...........Petitioner
State of Haryana ..........Respondent
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
Sabina, J.
Petitioner was convicted under Sections 471 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 10.8.2000 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hisar. Vide order of even date, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 471 IPC . Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar (Dharampal-I) vide judgment dated 18.7.2002 . Hence, the present revision petition.
The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment, are as under:-
Brief facts of this case are like this that a letter written by Dean College of Veterinary Sciences CCS HAU, Hisar to the SHO Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar regarding productin of bogus certificate by appellant-accused Krishan Kumar son of Laxmi Chand in which it was mentioned that when the documents were being verified of the candidates for admission to VLD diploma programme, it has come to the notice that the appellant-accused has produced bogus certificate and the certificate produced by the appellant-accused shows 454 marks as per detial given below:-
Hindi 75 English 70 Mathematics 82 Social Science 70 Science 67 Sanskrit 90___ Total 454 And as per record available in the P.G.S.D. High School from where the student has passed the Matriculation examination he has secured 341 marks as per detail given below:-
Hindi 74 English 48 Matehmatics 50 Social Science 47 Science 51 Sanskrit 71 _____ Total 341" Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. There was no material on record to
show that the signatures on the admission form were of the petitioner.
PW1 Dr.B.D.Garg who is the Dean of the College appeared in the witness box and deposed that the petitioner has applied for VLD course vide form Exhibit PB. When the genuineness of matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner was got verified from PSGD High School, it was informed that the petitioner had, in fact, obtained only 341 marks,whereas Exhibit PC shows that he had obtained 454 marks. The statement of PW 1 is duly corroborated by PW2 Superintendent Gajanand Goel. PW3 Dr. D.K.Thakral has deposed that he was the member of the Selection Committee for the course and when the application of the petitioner came up for consideration, the certificate submitted by the petitioner Exhibit PC was suspected to be not genuine.
In the present case, petitioner has applied for admission to VLD programme vide form Exhibit PB. The matriculation certificate attached with the form shows the marks of the petitioner as 454. The said certificate is Exhibit PC. However, it was found that in fact, the petitioner had obtained only 341 marks in his matriculation examination. A perusal of the form Exhibit PD reveals that the same is duly signed by the petitioner and also bears the photographs of the applicant/petitioner. Exhibit PC is the matriculation certificate showing the marks of the petitioner in matriculation examination as 454 out of 600 whereas Exhibit PW8/A of the matriculation certificate shows his marks as 341 out of 600.
There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never submitted the said application for admission. There was no occasion for any other person to apply on behalf of the petitioner by attaching a forged matriculation certificate. The only beneficiary was the petitioner. Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Both the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner under Section 471 IPC.
Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner is maintained.
However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was a young boy of 17 years of age at the time of alleged offence and is facing criminal proceedings since the year 1992, it would be just and expedient, to extend the benefit of probation to the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act,1958.
Petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It is further directed that the petitioner shall keep peace and will be of good behaviour during the period of probation. The petitioner is directed to furnish the bonds within one month from today, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Sabina)
CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVER Vs DR T R KAPOOR
RAVI KUMAR RAWAL Vs CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVER
C.W.P. No. 4780 of 2009
Ravi Kumar Rawal .... PETITIONER
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others
..... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Ram Niwas Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the show cause notice issued by the Registrar of the respondent University to explain his position in writing with regard to the decision of the University to relieve him from service.
At this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, being pre-mature and in my opinion, the petitioner has the liberty to raise all the points raised in this petition before the authority concerned and if an adverse order is passed, it will be open for him to approach this Court.
Dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
AMIT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVER
Amit Singh and others .... PETITIONERS
Mr. Anju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with
Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed application (C.M. No. 2041 of 2009) for disposing of the present writ petition in view of the order dated 17.11.2008, passed by this Court in CWP No. 3351 of 1994. The issue involved in the instant petition is squarely covered by the said decision and the similar petition has been dismissed by this court vide the said order.
Notice of this application was issued to counsel for the petitioner. She has
not disputed the aforesaid fact, stated in the application.
In view of the aforesaid admitted position, the application (CM No. 2041 of 2009) is allowed and the instant writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 17.11.2008, passed in CWP No. 3351 of 1994.
ASHOK Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Civil Writ Petition No.8470 of 2004
Date of decision: 22 nd July, 2009
Ajeet Singh and others … Petitioners
State of Haryana and others … Respondents
Surender Singh and others … Petitioners
Ashok … Petitioner
Kadam Singh … Petitioner
Lakhmi Chand and another … Petitioners
Civil Writ Petition No. 8470 of 2004
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HOBBLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the State.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for Haryana Pollution Control Board.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Advocate for
Mr. Sudershan Goel, Advocate for Central Pollution Control Board.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate for Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for M/s S.R.S. Company.
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
T.S. THAKUR, CJ. (ORAL)
These writ petitions filed in public interest, pray for a mandamus directing the respondents to take immediate action and to put an end to the indiscriminate, illicit, mindless mining of sand on the fertile agricultural land in village Harsinghpura, Tehsil Gharuanda; village Shekhpura and Kond in District Karnal; village Janti Kalan in District Sonepat and village Khotpura in District Panipat, which would according to
the petitioners cause environment disaster if allowed to go on unabated.
This Court had, by an order dated 31 st August, 2005, elicited the views of specialists in the agriculture sector and impleaded the Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar as a party to one of the petitions, to determine the environment hazards, if any, involved in mining of sand from agriculture land in the State of Haryana. A Committee comprising
seven experts from different disciplines constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University, submitted a report to this Court pursuant to the said order, in which it was, inter-alia, opined that sand mining in agriculture lands had destroyed the natural soil profile and resulted in land degradation due to soil erosion in the fields adjacent to the mined area. It was also pointed out that the sand mining has adversely affected the texture, structure, organic matter and available nutrients status of the soil, which would obviously decrease crop productivity in the affected area.
This Court was, on perusal of the said report, prima facie of the view that the situation arising out of mining of sand from fertile agriculture lands was alarming and that in case remedial steps are not taken, such mining operations may adversely affect the environment. The Court had, accordingly stopped the on-going mining activity in the villages in question by an order dated 5 th April, 2006.
On 22 nd May, 2007, when the matter came up again, the attention of this Court was drawn to the report submitted by Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal and the comments offered by the said institute regarding the report submitted by the Haryana Agriculture University which were at variance with each other. In order to resolve the conflict, this Court had directed the Committee of Experts, earlier constituted by the Haryana Agriculture University, to visit three other districts of Haryana also, namely Yamunanagar, Sonepat and Panipat in order to evaluate the hazards of mining of sand of agricultural land. On the submission of the said report, this Court forwarded the report submitted by the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal as also the report submitted by Haryana Agriculture University to Haryana State Pollution Control Board as also to the Central Pollution Control Board for their comments regarding the same. The respondents were also directed to examine whether the matter could be referred to the Central Environment Impact Assessment Authority constituted by the Central Government.
Mr. Randhir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State, today submits that the mining for removal of sand in the State of Haryana have all expired by efflux of time.
He further submits that the Government have, after proper examination of the environmental concerns expressed in certain quarters, taken a decision that while granting fresh leases, the lessee shall have to obtain prior environmental clearance from the competent authority in terms of Notification dated 14 th September, 2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, before they commence the mining activity. In support, he has placed on record a copy of Auction Notice dated 10 th March, 2008, which stipulates the terms and conditions of the auction, including condition No.16 and 22 thereof, that read as under:
16. The mining will be allowed to be commenced only after prior Environmental Clearance from Competent Authority as required under notification dated 14/9/2006 issued by MOEF, GOI 17. In case any tree/ plantation is removed during mining activity, the contractor will plant minimum double number of such plants, which will be in addition to the plantation done otherwise as per mining scheme. Before removal of any tree permission of competent authority shall be obtained.
22. The contractor shall carry out mining in accordance with all other provisions applicable as per Mines Act, 1952, Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development)
Act, 1957, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules made thereunder.
It is submitted by Mr. Randhir Singh that auction of leases for mining of sand is now subject to proper evaluation of the environmental hazards and clearance by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, constituted by the Government of India in terms of Notification dated 14 th September, 2006. It is urged that all issues
regarding the possible environmental degradation of the area on account of mining activities will have to be addressed and proper clearance obtained from the above authority constituted by Government of India in terms of Notification dated 21 st April, 2008, before the lessees are allowed to commence their mining activities. He urged that since a specialized expert Committee has to grant environmental clearance before the mining activity starts, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the continued mining of sand from the agricultural land would result in irreparable damage to the quality of the soil or productivity of the land, will also be addressed and examined by the Authority concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the light of the terms and conditions stipulated by the State Govt. and the fact that all issues relating to the impact of mining on environment will be examined by the State Level Committee, the present petitions could be disposed of with a direction that the mining operations shall conform to the requirements of the Auction Notice and the Notification dated 14 th September, 2006 issued by the Government of India.
In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, we see no reason to keep these proceedings pending with us any longer. In view of the change, that has been introduced by the State Government during the pendency of these
proceedings, in the approach to be adopted towards grant of leases and the care, that has to be taken while allowing the lessees to undertake mining operations, as also the fact that an expert Authority constituted by the Government shall have to grant clearance before the mining of sand starts, we see no reason to assume that all these safeguards notwithstanding, there will be any danger to the environment on account of
unregulated and unabated mining operations. All that we need say is that the respondent State Government and its agencies shall ensure that the terms of the Auction Notice are strictly adhered to by the lessees concerned and no mining activity is allowed to be carried out, except after obtaining proper clearance from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority constituted in terms of the notifications mentioned above. Needless to say that in case any violation of the above policy of the State Government and the legal framework provided for the mining activities is noticed, the petitioners shall be free to re-agitate the matter in appropriate proceedings before this Court. These petitions are disposed of with the above observations.
No costs.
[T. S. THAKUR]
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
ALKA CHAUDHRY Vs VICE CHANCELLOR AND ANOTHER
C.W.P. No.10304 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 15, 2009
Alka Chaudhry .....PETITIONER
Vice Chancellor and another....RESPONDENTS
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Mr.Chanan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
The petitioner is resident of Village Mandkola, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal. The Gram Panchayat, Mandkola donated 375 kanals 16 marlas of land to Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar for setting up of Krishi Vigyan Kendra with an understanding that the employees, if any, employed under the said centre would be employed only from the said village. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent University vide advertisement No.2/2008 invited applications from suitable candidates for filling up the post of a Clerk in the Krishi Vigyan Kendra. The petitioner applied for the said post and was called for written test, but she could not clear the same. Second time, the University invited applications from the suitable candidates. The petitioner again appeared on 21.12.2008 and cleared the written examination. Further she was called to clear the type test, which was a mandatory qualification for the post of Clerk. Since the petitioner could not clear the said type test, she was not offered the appointment letter.
In the instant petition, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the said post of Clerk in the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Mandkola. In my opinion, until and unless the petitioner clears the type test or fulfills the essential qualification for appointment to the said post, no such direction can be issued.
THE PRINCIPAL CAMPUS SCHOOL CCS HARYANA AGRICUL Vs SMT SARBATI DEVI AND OTHERS
The Principal, Campus School, CCS, Haryana ....Petitioner Agriculture University, Hisar.
Smt. Sarbati Devi and others ...Respondents
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The award that is challenged before this Court is a direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages. The claim by the workman was that she had been employed as Sweeper from 1989 with the University and she had been orally terminated from her services in January 1996. The contention on behalf of the University was that she worked on a temporary basis in the year 1989 and her services were terminated and again taken pursuant to an agreement that was brought out on 13.07.1995 that stipulated a term of service from 13.07.1995 to 09.10.1995. Again a fresh agreement had been made on 16.10.1995, when she was offered employment from 18.10.1995 to 14.01.1996. She stopped coming for the University after 12.01.1996 and since her engagement herself was through a contract for a particular period and after the expiry of the said period, if she had not been offered employment it could not be termed retrenchment and it would be covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The Labour Court had no more evidence before it than what the management proved through two distinct agreements that limited the respective periods of engagement upto 14.01.1996. The Labour Court found that workman had held 240 days of service but still held that the management had not clearly stated whether they had terminated her services under the agreement or she stopped coming from 12.01.1996 tself. It also referred to some decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to say that Section 2(oo)(bb) could not be invoked in cases where the management had acted unreasonably and had no policy of regularization. It found the act of the management to be arbitrary or unconstitutional and directed reinstatement.
3. Several decisions relied on by the Labour Court have been expressly overruled by Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi- (2006) 4 SCC 1. If the engagement itself was for a particular period and it was by the terms of employment temporary the termination of employment as per the terms of the contract would not amount to retrenchment by virtue of the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Labour Court was unjustified in holding that the non-regularization of the Sweeper was arbitrary or unconstitutional. No person serving as Sweeper in University could obtain right to regularization unless the relevant recruitment rules provided for a scheme for regularization or when the engagement was to a particular sanctioned post. It has not been shown that there had been any regular post to which the workman was entitled to be reinstated.
When the term of contract specifically spelt out the employment to be temporary and delimited to a specified period, an order providing for reinstatement or directing regularization was just not proper. The disposition made by the Labour Court also ill-fits with the judicial pronouncements of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the High Courts in the aftermath of Uma Devi case (referred to supra).
4. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, having regard to the fact that the workman was abruptly terminated from her service, she shall be paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- recoverable from the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. No costs.
(K.KANNAN)
STATE OF HARYANA Vs BHAGWAN DASS GARG
Crl. Rev. No. 2140 of 2006
Date of Decision: July 1, 2009
State of Haryana …..Petitioner
Bhagwan Dass Garg …..Respondents
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
Mr. Rattan Brar, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner.
Mr. Madhu Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
State of Haryana has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, quashing the chargesheet dated April 22, 2002, framed against Bhagwan Dass Garg by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, under Sections 465, 469, read with Section 120-B IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on the basis of a written complaint dated August 14, 1998 by Puran Chand, resident of Hisar, moved in the Court of CJM, Hisar, stating that he was working as Scientist in Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, (for short H.A.U. ). Accused Satish Kumar Jain and Bhagwan Dass Garg were also working in Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar.
Bhagwan Dass Garg had retried in the year 1998. Both the said accused were inimical towards complainant Puran Chand. On account of that reason, Satish Kumar Jain had launched a false arbitration proceedings dated January 20, 1993 against him and later on in connivance with his companion, he had beaten Puran Chand on December 9, 1995. In the year 1996, the complainant received a notice from the office of Sh.Sunil Mehra, Advocate, Gurdaspur. He was asked to appear there for making payment of some alleged loanee Kishore Mahajan. He again received a notice that in case of his failure to appear, an ex-parte proceeding will be initiated against him. The complainant made enquiry by going to Gurdaspur and he came to know that no such Advocate by the name of Sunil Mehra existed in the city.
He also received registered letter shown to be from the Court of Civil Judge,
(Senior Division), Hisar in case Kishore Mahajan Vs. Puran Chand but on
enquiry he came to know that no such case was ever pending. In this manner, the complainant had been receiving several threats. The complainant when appeared as a witness in the Court of Sh.Amarjit Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, in case Puran Chand Vs. Satish Chand, he was put a registered letter dated November 8, 1996 by the counsel of Satish Kumar which was typed by Bhagwan Dass Garg alleging that complainant had sent a letter in the name of Bhagwan Dass Garg to High Court as well as to Sessions Court but as a matter of fact the complainant had not got written any such letters. Thereafter a photocopy of the letter dated June 5, 1999 was received by the complainant through his colleague
Prof. Dr.S.K. Batra, which letter was delivered to him by Bhagwan Dass Garg just to defame and defraud the complainant. Later on, the complainant came to know that the letter given to Dr.S.K. Batra by accused, letter received from the office of Sunil Mehra, Advocate, were of same origin as both were typed by same typewriter and actually the letter from Sunil Mehra, Advocate was not sent from Gurdaspur but was sent from Mini Secretariat Post Office, Hisar, therefore, Satish Kumar and Bhagwan Dass Jain in collusion with each other just to defame and defraud the complainant have prepared forged letters under disguise of complainant. The complaint was filed in the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and on the directions of the Magistrate it was sent for investigation. The Magistrate had framed charges under Sections 465, 469 and 500 IPC against Bhagwan Dass Garg and his co-accused Satish Kumar Jain. Revision petition against the charges was filed by both the respondents. Vide order dated February 13, 2006, Bhagwan Dass Garg was discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Hisar. It is pertinent to mention that the trial of Satish Kumar Jain continued before the CJM, Hisar. Vide order dated December 8, 2007, CJM, Hisar, had acquitted Satish Kumar Jain. As the order dated December 8, 2007 came into existence during the pendency of this revision petition and has been produced at the time of final arguments, photocopy of the same has been taken on record, as admitted document.
While acquitting Satish Kumar Jain, it was observed that there was not sufficient evidence on the record to indicate that letter against complainant- Puran Chand had been written or sent by Satish Kumar Jain.
Testimony of PW1 S.K.Batra, was not believed to be true being only a hearsay evidence as regards allegations of forgery. PW2 Om Parkash Saini, Postal Assistant, Hisar and PW3 Rajinder Singh, Postal Assistant, Hisar have failed to recognize the accused and they had admitted that the accused never appeared before them. The CJM observed that complainant Puran Chand has not been examined.
Since most material witness complainant did not appear before the Court and the sole testimony of Dr.S.K. Batra, had been rejected, State counsel has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the impugned order discharging Bhagwan Dass Garg, could be challenged on the ground that there was sufficient evidence against him when co-accused of Bhagwan Dass Garg stands acquitted on the basis of same evidence relied upon by the State counsel.
I have carefully gone through the detailed order passed by Additional Sessions Judge exercising revisional jurisdiction. There does not appear to be any ground to interfere in the said order exercising powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere in the order of discharges passed in favour of respondent Bhagwan Dass Garg.
HARISH KUMAR STENO-TYPIST (ENGLISH) Vs CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVER
RSA No.4942 of 2003 (O and M)
Date of decision:22.5.2009
Harish Kumar Steno-typist (English) ......Appellant
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and others ......Respondents
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No.6286-C of 2009
CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
This is an application for permission to withdraw the present appeal.
It has been stated in this application that the respondents have decided to promote the appellant as Sr. Scale Stenographer in its 226 th meeting of the Board of Management and therefore, the appellant does not wish to press this appeal. This application is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the withdrawal of this appeal Application is allowed and the present appeal is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
C C S HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISAR AND Vs PARIKSHIT BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS
Date of decision: 21.5.2009
(1) Civil Revision No. 5348 of 2008 (O and M)
C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another…..Petitioners
Parikshit Bhardwaj and others .. Respondents
C.C.S. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another .. Petitioners
Vinod Kumar.. Respondent
Ravinder Kumar .. Respondent
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. R. K.Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned three petitions, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
The facts have been noticed from CR No. 5348 of 2008.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.8.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby while reversing the order passed by the trial court, he had permitted the respondents-plaintiffs to attend the classes and appear in the examination on provisional basis. It is in a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs challenging the action of the petitioners, whereby their candidatures were cancelled on account of the allegation that some one else had impersonated on their behalf in the entrance examination. As per the directions in the impugned order, the respondents attended the classes and had even appeared in the examination.
Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, interest of justice would be served if the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit, which is stated to be pending on 27.5.2009 for evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from respondent-Hardeep, stated at bar that two witnesses on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs have already been examined and some evidence is to be led on the next date. Thereafter, the court will grant one more opportunity to the respondents-plaintiffs for completing their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility on or before 14.6.2009.
However, the respondents-plaintiffs shall be at liberty to get dasti summons issued, in case any witness is to be summoned. Thereafter, the petitioners-defendants shall be granted two opportunities to complete their evidence within a period of one month, after the court opens after summer vacations. In any case, the trial of the suit is to be completed by the end of August, 2009.
The revision petitions are disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal)
SMT SHARDA Vs PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-CUM-INDUSTRIAL TRI
D C MADAN Vs HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISAR AND ANOTHER
R.S.A. No. 769 of 1987
Date of Decision: November 27, 2009
D.C. Madan …Appellant
Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another …Respondents
Mr. Rup Chand, Advocate, for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) challenges concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below declaring order dated 6.12.1980, passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, as legal and valid. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant was working on the post of Accountant in the defendant University. On 2.9.1977, while working in the office of Deputy Estate Officer, HAU, Hisar, he kept the cash chest in a steel almirah and locked the same in RSA No. 769 of 1987 the presence of some officials. Leter at about 3.15 p.m. when he opened the steel almirah for making payment to some employees, the cash amounting to Rs. 4,748.74 paise was found missing. The case was reported to the police and an FIR No. 363 under Section 380 IPC was registered. However, the criminal case was filed as untraced after investigation by the police.
On 12.10.1977, the plaintiff-appellant was suspended.
On 7.12.1977, a charge sheet was issued to him for causing loss of
Rs. 4,748.74 paise. After furnishing reply to the charge sheet by the
plaintiff-appellant, Dr. M.S. Chaudhry, Associate Dean, College of
Agriculture, HAU, Hisar, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer for
conducting the inquiry. However, the Enquiry Officer in his report
absolved the plaintiff-appellant of the charges levelled except holding him guilty of some irregularities. The Vice-Chancellor being
appointing authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, on 6.12.1980, the Vice-Chancellor has
passed the following order:-
(1) Sh. D.C. Madan be reinstated as Accountant. The period of suspension be treated as non-duty and Sh. Madan will get 80% of his salary for the period of suspension.
(ii) One annual increment of Shri Madan is hereby stopped without cumulative effect.
(iii) Sh. Madan will pay to the University the amount of Rs. 4748.74. The arrears due to Sh. Madan on account of difference of subsistence allowance would be adjusted against this recovery and the remaining amount will be recoverable in instalments of Rs. 100/- per month.
3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration alleging that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. The claim made by the plaintiffappellant
is that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded by the Vice-Chancellor nor any show cause notice was issued before passing
the impugned order.
4. The defendant-respondents denied the allegations and contested the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. It was urged that the recovery amount of Rs. 4748.74 paise was later on reduced to Rs. 3,661.58 paise on humanitarian grounds by the Vice Chancellor on reconsideration of the matter (Ex. P-5).
5. The trial Court has given a finding of fact that after the report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the matter was scrutinised by the Assistant Registrar, Employment on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor, who opined that the loss of cash chest occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff-appellant (Ex. D-3). Concurring with the said opinion, the Vice-Chancellor has passed the impugned order against the plaintiff-appellant. The trial Court has found the order dated 6.12.1980 passed by the Vice-Chancellor as valid and in accordance with law. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the plaintiffappellant was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.1986, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant I am of the considered view that a paltry sum of Rs. 3,661.58 paise is involved and an appeal under Section 100 of the Code should not be entertained. The appeal was admitted on 22.7.1987 without framing any question of law, which in fact does not emerge from the
concurrent findings. The impugned order was passed, inter alia, for
recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,748.74 paise, on account of loss of
cash kept in chest by the plaintiff-appellant, which was under his control. It has also come on record that the aforementioned amount
was subsequently reduced to Rs. 3,661.58 paise. These are minor
penalties which could be imposed even without any regular enquiry.
Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff-appellant
was negligent in loss of the said amount from the chest. These are
pure findings of facts. Therefore, after following the due procedure
as provided for inflicting minor penalty in the statutory rules governing the service conditions of the plaintiff-appellant, the competent authority directed recovery of the said amount from him.
These are concurrent findings of facts, which need not to be interfered by this Court.
In view of above, I find no merit in the instant appeal.
The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
RAMDHAN SINGH NARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
VICE CHANCELLOR CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AG Vs SUBHASH MAKKAR
RSA No.817 of 2009
Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another .....Appellants
Subhash Makkar ....Respondent
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present :
Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate for the respondent.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The appellants challenge the judgements and decrees dated 28.4.2006 and 14.11.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar and the Additional Disttt. Judge, Hisar, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to the pay scale being drawn by his juniors, with effect from 1.4.1986. The appellants opposed the suit by pleading that the respondent's pay scale has been rightly fixed. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether Dariyav Singh, who was appointed as Electricians-cum-Tubewell Operator is junior most to plaintiff and now he is getting higher pay scale from the plaintiff as alleged in para No.3 of the plaint ? OPP.
2. Whether the defendants are legally bound to pay salary to plaintiff more than his juniors in the higher standard scale ? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file present suit ? OPD
7. Relief.
After considering the pleadings,the arguments addressed and the evidence adduced, the trial court decreed the suit and held that the respondent is entitled to revised pay scales with effect from 1.4.1986.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 14.11.2008, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the only point that arises for consideration is, whether the courts below could have decreed the suit for arrears of salary with effect from 1.4.1986. It is submitted that the courts below could not have entertained such a belated claim for
rectification of salary and even otherwise, if entitled the arrears of salary
be confined to a period of 38 months, preceding the filing of the suit.
Counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection, if the judgements and decrees passed by the courts below are modified to the
extent that the arrears of the salary so fixed are confined to a period of 38 months, preceding to the filing of the suit.
In view of the statement made by counsel for the respondent, counsel for the appellants states that he has no objection, if the judgements and decrees are modified accordingly.
In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgements and decrees passed by the courts below are
modified to the extent that the arrears, due to the respondent on account of the revision of his pay scales from 1.4.1986 are confined to 38 months
preceding the filing of the suit on 20.1.2004. The appellants are directed to make the payment of the amount due to the respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(RAJIVE BHALLA)
SAROJ YADAV AND OTHERSVsCH CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY H
COCP No.464 of 2009
Saroj Yadav and others .....PETITIONER
Ch.Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others
....RESPONDENTS
Mr.J.K. Sibal,Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Vaibhav Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Girish Agnihhotri, Senior Advocate, with
Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, for the respondents.
Since CWP No.15859 of 2004 filed by the petitioners has been disposed of vide order of the even date, learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press this contempt petition.
Dismissed as not pressed.
HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Vs A S NANDWAL and OTHERS LPA 216 of 2008
A P VINAYAK Vs HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISSAR AND OTHERS RSA 1456 of 1985
A.P. Vinayak .....Appellant
Haryana Agricultural University Hissar and others ....Respondents
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Mr.M.S. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondent no.1.
The appellant, an Assistant working in the office of Professor and Head of Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Hissar Agricultural
University, Hissar, challenges the judgements and decrees dated 31.5.1983 and 1.8.1984 passed by the Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Hissar and the Additional District Judge, Hissar, respectively.
The appellant, joined the erstwhile Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, as a Steno-typist on 22.8.1964 at its Hissar Campus.
He was appointed as a Junior Scale Stenographer, vide order dated 6.3.1965 and joined as such on 10.3.1965. He was promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 23.1.1971. It appears from the facts that as the appellant did not pass the Senior Scale Stenography type test, the respondents proposed to revert him to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer. However, as in the meanwhile his juniors were promoted, the respondent thought it proper to transfer the appellant to the post of Assistant vide order dated 29.1.1971. The order dated 29.1.1971 states that the appellants seniority would be reckoned from 23.1.1971. A provisional seniority list of Senior Scale Stenographers appointed from 25.1.1971 to 20.9.1971 was drawn up and circulated. The appellant filed objections to the seniority list, which were rejected. In the final seniority list circulated on 13.5.1977, the appellant was placed at Sr.No.56. Aggrieved by the
seniority list, the appellant filed a suit, praying that he be granted seniority with effect from 23.1.1971, in terms of the order dated 29.1.1971.
The respondent opposed the suit by asserting that instead of reverting him, the appellant was granted a concession and promoted to the post of Assistant. The order that the appellants seniority would be reckoned from 23.1.1971 violates the University Statutes that govern inter-se seniority and cannot be invoked by the appellant. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.10.80 is illegal, bad in law, ineffective and is liable to be struck down on the ground alleged ?
OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.
After a considered appraisal of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial Court dismissed the
suit. Aggrieved by the said judgement, the appellant filed an appeal.
The appeal met the same fate, as it was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (III), Hissar. Both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have held that the appellant is not entitled to reckon his seniority from 23.1.1971 as his seniority is to be calculated from 21.9.1971, the date of his appointment as an ssistant.
Counsel for the appellant submits that order appointing the appellant as an Assistant, is specific in its import that the appellants
seniority would be reckoned from 23.1.1971. The order was passed as the appellant was admittedly promoted to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971 and only adjusted against the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971.
Both the Courts below committed an error in discarding this part of the order and holding that the appellant could not draw any benefit, as this order violated statute 8 of the University Statues.
Counsel for the respondent, however, asserts that the Courts below have appreciated the facts, the relevant statutes that govern the
functioning of the University and have returned concurrent findings of fact that the appellants seniority would be reckoned from the date of his continuous appointment to the post of Assistant i.e. 21.9.1971. It is further submitted that in view of the judgement in RSA No.348 of 1974 (S.L.Arora, Assistant Registrar, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar V. Gian Singh and others) decided on 28.8.1974 that these posts are not inter changeable, the appellants appointment to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971, cannot be counted as continuous appointment to the post of Assistant, as the appellant was appointed as an Assistant on 21.9.1971.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements.
The trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have held that as the appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971, he
could not take advantage of his appointment as a Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971. It was held that as these two posts were not inter changeable, the appointment of the appellant to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971 would not count for the purpose of computing his continuous service on the post of Assistant.
I find no reason, whether in law or in fact, to interfere with these concurrent findings. The Universitys Statute prescribe that inter-se
seniority shall be determined by the date of continuous appointment to the post. The appellant was admittedly appointed to the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971. In RSA No.348 of 1974 S.L. Arora V. Gian Singh (supra), while considering a similar controversy, relating to the respondent University, it was held that the posts of Senior Scale Stenographer and Assistant are not inter changeable. The appellant was appointed to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer on 25.1.1971 and thereafter by way of a separate order, he was appointed to the post of Assistant on 21.9.1971. As these posts are not inter changeable, the appellant would not be entitled to reckon his seniority from the date of his appointment as a Senior Scale Stenographer. Though, the order appointing him as an Assistant states that the appellants seniority would be reckoned from 25.1.1971, he cannot draw any benefit therefrom, as it is contrary to Universitys Statute no.8, which provides that seniority would be reckoned from the date of continuous appointment. As the appellant was appointed as an Assistant on 21.9.1971, it was rightly held that his seniority would be reckoned from 21.9.1971.
In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned judgements do not suffer from any error of fact or of law, as would require interference, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
BALWAN SINGH Vs CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERS CWP 16185 of 2008
Date of decision : September 11, 2008
Balwan Singh ............Petitioner
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar ...........Respondents
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
M.M KUMAR, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for withdrawal of the petition with a liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.
Ordered accordingly.
( M.M KUMAR )
( JORA SINGH )
RAKESH KUMAR Vs CCS HAU AND OTHERS LPA 78 of 2007
Rakesh Kumar ..Appellant
C.C.S. HAU and others ..Respondents
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Mr. J.K.Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2
Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3
T.S.Thakur, C.J.(Oral)
This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 14665 of 2005 filed by the petitioner-appellant for regularization of his services as a Research Associate, has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant as Research Associate in connection with the project under Haryana Agriculture University was a pure and simple
contractual arrangement which came to an end on 30.9.2005. The Court also noted the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others V. Umadevi and others, JT 2006(4) SC 420, and found the petitionerappellant entitled to no relief resulting in the dismissal of the petition.
Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sibal, fairly conceded that in so far as the claim for regularization of the services of the appellant was concerned, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appointment in question being contractual in nature, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of regularization. Mr. Sibal, all the same, argued on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra and others V. State of Rajasthan and others, 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases, 317, that in the matter of any future employment for similar project work, the University, could be directed to give preference to the petitioner if he was otherwise eligible for the same and also grant relaxation of the age bar, if any, prescribed for such employment.
The decision in Rajendra and others, case (Supra), no doubt makes a direction while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners in that case to the effect that in the event of any additional posts being created in future due to some new schemes/programmes being introduced, the petitioners may be given preference according to their seniority, subject to eligibility after giving relaxation of age in view of the service rendered by each one of them in the DRDAs. That observation, may not, however, justify a similar direction in the instant case having regard to the fact that learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that employment of the petitioner-appellant was purely contractual in nature and was to be coterminous with the life of project work in connection with which he was engaged. That view was, in our opinion, perfectly justified and legally unexceptionable for the employment in question being purely contractual in nature and limited to the period for which the project in question was under implementation, could not entitle the petitioner to either continue in service or regularization in the absence of any substantive vacancy available for such regularization. Having said so, we are of the view that the petitioner-appellant would be entitled to be considered for any future employment in connection with
any future project which the university may envisage or formulate, based on his merit and suitability as also the experience that he may have acquired in connection with similar other work done by him in connection with other projects.
Even that would be permissible only by considering the petitioners claim together with the claims of all other eligible candidates for any such employment.
In so far as relaxation of age is concerned, there is nothing before us to suggest that any future project would have any age bar for employment of Research Associate. All that we need say in that regard is that in case there is any age bar prescribed for employment of Research Associate, the competent authority shall be free to consider the relaxation of such age bar in appropriate cases including in the case of the petitioner herein.
With these observation, this appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(T.S.THAKUR)
(SURYA KANT)
SARDARA RAM Vs CCS HAU HISSAR AND OTHERS Regular Second Appeal 2771 of 2008
Date of Order: 01.09.2008
Sardara Ram ...Appellant
CCS HAU, Hissar and another ..Respondents
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the appellant.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).
The appellant, has filed this Regular Second Appeal praying that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below ,namely the Civil Judge (Sr. Division),Hisar, dated 31.11.2005 and the Additional District Judge, Hisar, dated 23.07.2008, dismissing his suit and his appeal respectively be set aside.
The appellant filed a suit for declaration praying that as he is a regular employee (Chowkidar) and still in service of the respondents and he is entitled to receive arrears of pay and other benefits from June, 1995.
A consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to allow the appellant to join his duties was also prayed. In addition, the appellant prayed for grant of a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from terminating his services.
Briefly, stated the appellant was in the service of the respondent University as a Chowkidar since 1965. He did not report for duty after May, 1995 despite repeated reminders. A show cause notice issued under clause 20(9) of Chapter VI of the University Statute was not received by the appellant. The show cause notice was eventually pasted at his residence, but as it did not elicit any response, his post was declared vacant vide order dated 06.07.1998.
On 05.11.1997, the appellant claims to have met the respondents and pleaded that he be allowed retire voluntarily on account of his permanent disability and in his place his son be appointed. As his request was declined, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.679-C dated 24.11.1997.
Pursuant to an interim order dated 13.09.2001, passed in that suit, the appellant was directed to get himself medically examined for assessment of his permanent disability. The Disability Certificate, disclosed a disability of 10 per cent on account of pain in back and knee joints of both sides and mild restriction of movements at extremes. The appellant thereafter, withdrew his suit with a view to join his duty, but alleges that the respondents did not allow him to join duty.
The appellant, therefore, filed the instant suit. After framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that as the appellants post had been declared vacant by a valid order, no relief could be granted. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate Court.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a regular employee since 1965 but on account of an injury to his back- bone, he is permanently disabled. His post, therefore, could not be declared vacant without issuance of a charge-sheet, conduct of an enquiry and without grant of personal hearing. The action by the University in terminating his services is, therefore, illegal and void and the appellant
should be deemed to be in service from June, 1995.
I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned orders. As noticed in the above narrated facts, the appellant abandoned his post and did not report for duty after May, 1995 compelling the respondent-University to declare his post vacant. This order was preceded by a show cause notice in terms of the relevant rule. The notice was pasted on the appellants door, but did not elicit any response.
The appellant filed a suit, wherein a medical examination disclosed that the disability was only 10 per cent. The appellant withdrew the suit and filed the present suit.
I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the University declaring the appellants post vacant. Employees like the appellant, who remain absent from duty without leave are not entitled to any consideration. A regular employee does not have a license to hold his employer to ransom. The order passed by the University declaring the appellants post vacant does not suffer from the violation of any provisions of the University statutes and none has been printed out. The orders passed by the Courts below are legal and valid as they do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, requiring interference by this Court. The arguments raised by counsel for the appellant have been considered and dealt with by the appellate court. The concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below do not call for interference.
RAJINDER SINGH Vs THE HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISAR ETC CWP 3337 of 1985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION : JULY 24 2008
RAJINDER SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S)
THE HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISAR ETC.
...... RESPONDENT(S)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Nemo.
AJAI LAMBA J. (Oral)
Rajinder Singh petitioner has filed this petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ or direction for quashing order dated 13.3.1985 (Annexure P-2) whereunder the diploma certificate of the petitioner for Stock Assistant Course has been withdrawn/cancelled.
As per the pleadings the petitioner possessed the certificate of
Matriculation standard examination from All India Vidwat Sammelan Aligarh (for short 'AIVS') which made him an eligible candidate for seeking admission to the Stock Assistant Course. In the year 1978-79 the petitioner accordingly applied for admission to the said course and was interviewed by the Selection Committee. The certificate as possessed by the petitioner was submitted. No objection was raised by the members of the Committee at the time of the interview and the validity of the certificate was not disputed. After completion of formalities for seeking admission the petitioner completed the course and was asked to fill up his annual examination form. At that point of time also the original certificate was checked and verified by the University authorities.
The petitioner accordingly was issued the roll number and was allowed to take the examination for the said course. He was declared pass. On the basis of the certificate issued by the respondent-University the petitioner applied for a Government job and was appointed to the post of Stock Assistant.
In January 1985 i.e. after about 6/7 years the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the University intimating that the admission had been sought on the basis of the certificate projecting it to be a matriculation certificate which however was not issued by a recognized University or Board. Under these circumstances the show cause notice was issued as to why the diploma certificate issued by the University on the basis of the certificate issued by AIVS be not cancelled and forfeited.
A reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner which was to the effect that the certificate was presented at various stages of admission. No objection was ever raised. The petitioner had successfully passed the course undertaken at Hisar and therefore there was no legal reason to cancel the diploma certificate and markssheet issued to the petitioner.
In view of these facts an apprehension has been shown in the
petition that the services of the petitioner would be terminated.
Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 through Registrar Haryana Agricultural University Hisar to the effect that the required qualification for seeking admission to the course of Stock Assistant was Matriculation however a certificate from the recognized institution could only be accepted.
Under these circumstances it was the duty of the petitioner to disclose that the institution from where he had obtained the matriculation certificate was not a recognized one.
The case of respondents No.1 and 2 further is that inquiries were made from Jabalpur University and the University had informed that AIVS had only been recognized for its intermediate examination. Even that recognition was subsequently withdrawn by the Jabalpur University and in the result the Matriculation certificate from AIVS clearly had been issued by an institution that was not a recognized one. It has therefore been pleaded that because the petitioner was not eligible to be admitted to the Course therefore the University was well within its right to cancel or withdraw the said certificate. The certificate could not be checked at an earlier stage because there was a huge rush of applicants who had submitted applications for admission to the course of Stock Assistant.
The inquiries could be made only at a later stage and on disclosure of true facts the impugned action was proposed.
Director Animal Husbandry Haryana (respondent No.3) has also filed a written statement giving out that the petitioner was appointed as a Stock Assistant on adhoc basis on 12.9.1979 and continued as such till the filing of the written statement. The petitioner was appointed on the basis of the diploma certificate.
The Haryana Agricultural University vide communication dated 13.3.1985 had informed respondent No.3 that the Matriculation certificate on the basis of which diploma course had been undertaken by the petitioner was not found to have been issued by a recognized University/Board established by any State Government. In this situation the diploma certificate had been cancelled.
I have gone through the pleadings and have considered the
issues involved.
There was an order to maintain status quo regarding service till further orders which is continuing till date. In the result it seems that the petitioner has continued to be in service.
The facts show that the petitioner took admission to the course of Stock Assistant in the year 1978-79. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the certificate available with the petitioner was presented and at that point in time was accepted.
It has further not been disputed that the petitioner completed the course and was declared pass and on the strength of the certificate issued by the respondent-University was given employment. It has further not been disputed that from 1978- 79 till January 1985 no action was taken by the University. The only explanation for delay is that at the time of admission there was a rush of applicants seeking admission and therefore the necessary inquiries could not be made.
The explanation of the respondent-University for the delay of 6 years surely cannot be accepted. The University is expected to make inquiries within a reasonable period i.e. during the currency of the course undertaken by a student. The University has not placed on record any document to indicate the conditions to which the students were subjected to. It has not been denied that the certificate held by the petitioner had been presented at the time of entry in the University to undertake the
course. It is not the case of the University that the certificate itself was a forged document. The clock in the facts and circumstances given hereinabove cannot be reversed particularly when it is the admitted case that the petitioner had passed the course of Stock Assistant successfully after completion of the course.
In view of the above the petition is allowed. Order dated 13.3.1985 (Annexure P-2) is accordingly quashed.
No order as to costs.
( AJAI LAMBA )
H L GOYAL Vs C C S H A U AND ORS LPA 101 of 2008
Date of Decision: 1.7.2008.
H.L.Goyal ............. Appellant through Mr.Harsh Aggarwal Advocate.
C.C.S.H.A.U.Hissar and Others. ..............Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Vijender JainChief Justice
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgement dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned single Judge vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was allowed however interest on a sum of Rs.76000/- (additional amount) illegally retained for more than seven years by the C.C.S. Haryana Agriculture University Hissar (hereinafter referred to as the respondent- University) has been denied to him if the amount is returned within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the learned single Judge.
Broadly stated the facts are that the appellant-petitioner before joining the respondent-University on 13.10.1970 had been employed in Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra for the period from 17.7.1963 to 12.10.1970. He retired from the respondent-University on 31.7.1997 as
Associate Professor (Athletics). In the year 1994 he applied to the respondent-University for counting his past service rendered by him in Kurukshetra UniversityKurukshetra for the purpose of pension and gratuity as per Clause 3.3 and 3.4 of the Pension Statute applicable to the respondent-University. He was required to pay the terminal benefits drawn by him from Kurukshetra University alongwith 6% simple interest as per rules prevailing at that time which he duly deposited on 7.12.1995 and the respondent-University vide its memo dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure P-4) conveyed the counting of his past service. Thereafter it was conveyed to him that the Board of Management vide notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) had substituted the rate of interest payable from 6% simple to the rates as applicable on CPG/GPF accumulation fixed by the respondent-University from time to time and the employees who deposited the terminal benefits drawn by them from the previous employers after 25.8.1994 were required to deposit the same alongwith interest on GPF rates. Against this demand petitioner filed representation/statutory appeal which were declined. Ultimately petitioner filed CWP No. 3442 of 1999 which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent- University to decide the statutory appeal of the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court. Since the respondent-University decided the appeal insisting upon the appellantpetitioner to deposit the additional amount of Rs.76000/- already demanded from him he filed CWP No. 8968 of 1999 challenging the demand of said additional amount. During the pendency of the said writ petition in compliance with the directions of this Court the petitioner deposited Rs.76000/- with the respondent-University.
In the written statement it was stated by the respondent-University that Government of Haryana vide its instructions dated 22.8.1988 had adopted the instructions dated 29.8.1984 issued by the Government of India regarding counting of past service rendered by the employees for counting towards pension provided they refunded terminal benefits with interest. The same had been adopted by the respondent-University on 9.4.1993 and
accordingly corresponding provision was made in the Pension Statute of the respondent-University for deposit of the terminal benefits with 6% simple interest as was being followed by the Central Government for its employees. The Government of India vide their notification dated 25.8.1994 substituted the rate of interest on retiral benefits to be deposited from 6% simple to the rates as applicable on GPF/CPF accumulations from time to time and since the scheme of Central Government/ Haryana Government was adopted as a whole amendments in the basic scheme were also to be
made applicable by the respondent-University and therefore vide impugned notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) an amendment was made in the relevant clauses of the Pension Statute providing that w.e.f. 25.8.1994 the rate of interest was to be taken as applicable on GPF/CPF accumulations fixed from time to time by the respondent-University. Therefore the employees who wanted to get their past service counted after 25.8.1994 for pension were required to refund the terminal benefits drawn by them from their previous employers alongwith GPF/CPF interest rate rather than 6%
simple interest. It is in these circumstances that demand for additional amount towards the same had been made from the appellant-petitioner.
The learned single Judge after considering the rival submission has held that the case of the petitioner had been finalised vide letter dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure P-1) and the amendment made in the relevant statues vide notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) could not be implemented retrospectively. Accordingly the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and directed the respondent-University to refund the additional amount retained by them within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which 6% simple interest was required to be paid on the said amount till realisation.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner.
The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellantpetitioner is that the learned single Judge has lost the sight of the fact that since the respondent-University constrained the appellant-petitioner to deposit the amount with compound interest as applicable to CPF/GPF the respondent-University should be directed to refund the amount at the same rate of interest.
In our thoughtful consideration the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is misconceived and hence rejected.
There was a serious dispute with regard to the applicability of the amended Clause 3.3 and 9(3) of the Pension Statutes of the respondent-University made vide notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P-3) to the case of the petitioner who had sought counting of past service rendered by him with Kurukshetra University from 17.7.1963 to 12.10.1970 after 25.8.1994. It is not in dispute that the additional amount of Rs.76000/- was deposited as per interim orders of this Court meaning thereby that prima facie the respondent-University had a case in their favour. However the learned single Judge has held without quashing the notification dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure P.3) amending the clause w.e.f 25.8.1994 that counting of the past service rendered by the petitioner with Kurukshetra University on deposit of terminal benefits had become final in his case and that the formal sanction had been issued vide memo dated 15.4.1996 thereafter the amended rule could not be applied to him retrospectively to withdraw the said concession. Therefore it cannot be said that the respondent-University had demanded the amount on the relevant date without their being any legal basis. It is a different matter that the said action has subsequently been declared as illegal by the learned single Judge and thus his right to get back the amount determined with the amended clause remaining intact. In such circumstances the learned single Judge in his discretion has rightly declined to grant interest on the additional amount paid by him.
In exercise of our jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal we do not find any ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judgehence the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
(VIJENDER JAIN)
(JASWANT SINGH)
CHANDI RAM Vs CH CHARAN SINGHHRY AGRI UNIV and ORS CWP 3700 of 2007
Date of Decision: 5.5.2008
Chandi Ram ....Petitioner
Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University and others
.....Respondents
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri M.S. Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
The petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 11.8.2006, whereby the past service rendered by the petitioner in the Department of Agriculture in the State of Haryana, has not been counted for the grant of pensionary benefits.
The petitioner was appointed on regular basis as a Junior Scientific Assistant in Soil and Water Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture. The petitioner worked from 25.9.1974 to 12.6.1979. The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Technician in the Department of Animal Nutrition in the respondent-University in terms of advertisement published on 8.10.1978. The petitioner was selected and joined the University on 13.6.1979 without any break.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been given any retiral benefits for his service rendered in the Department of Agriculture, except the payment of Rs.253/- on account of General Provident Fund, which was later transferred to the respondent-University in the Provident Fund Account of the petitioner. The petitioner has not received any other benefit from the State Government including gratuity, from the State Government. The pension Statute of the University provides for counting of past service of those employees, who have come from the State Government and joined the University, subject to the condition that whatever retiral benefits have been received by the employees from the State Government, the same shall be deposited with the University with interest. A copy of the communication for counting the past service subject to deposit of the amount received from the previous employer dated 6.9.1993, has been appended by the petitioner as Annexure P.1. Later on, another circular was issued on 26.2.1999 by the University by giving another chance to the employees to change their option from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme, by exercising option within four months. The petitioner exercised his option for Pension Scheme and thus, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to counting of his past service towards the pensionary benefits.
The petitioner submitted representation to count his previous service, wherein an objection was raised that the contribution from the State Government qua the pensionary benefits for the service rendered by the petitioner with the State Government, has not been received as required by the University Statute. The State Government has agreed to deposit the amount of contribution vide communication dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure P.5), whereby it was written to the University
Authorities to intimate the amount which is required to be deposited by
the Office of Director Agriculture, Haryana. However, vide communication Annexure P.6, the request of the petitioner for counting
of the past service was declined for the reason that the petitioner had not applied for benefit of the past service within the stipulated period of four month, as required vide circular dated 26.2.1999. In terms of Instructions dated 7.1.2002 issued by the State of Haryana, the petitioner applied for counting of his past service for the purposes of pension. Since no decision was taken in terms of the subsequent decision of the State Government, the petitioner invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court for counting of past service for the purposes of
pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner after his superannuation on 30.9.2007.
In reply, it has been pointed out that the Pension Scheme was circulated on 6.9.1993. Para No. 3 of the said circular indicates that where no terminal benefits for the previous service have been received by such employees, the previous service in such case shall be counted for pension only if the previous employee accepts the pensionary liability for the service rendered in that Department/Organisation. It is further pointed out that in terms of
Circular dated 26.2.1999, the petitioner opted for Pension Scheme on
22.4.1999 as the faculty members/employees, who wanted to change the option and wished to count their past service for pension, were required to apply within the stipulated date as per the Instructions dated 6.9.1993 followed by Memo dated 23.8.1994. The petitioner applied for counting of past service on 12.9.2000 i.e. after stipulated date on 25.6.1999. It has been further pointed out that neither the petitioner sought counting of his past service nor the petitioner is entitled to pension because he has not exercised the option at the time of introduction of Pension Scheme vide circular dated 6.9.1993. It is further pointed out that though the petitioner changed his option from CPF to the Pension Scheme, in response to the University memo dated 26.2.1999, but the petitioner did not apply for counting of his past service for pension upto 25.6.1999. Still further, the petitioner made a representation on 12.9.2000 much after the stipulated date.
In a separate reply filed on behalf of the Directorate of Agriculture, it has been pointed out that if the past service of the employee is to be counted towards the pensionary benefits, then respondent No.3 has to deposit the amount of pensionary liability of the petitioner in accordance with law. It has further been stated that as per the provisions of Rules, pensionary liabiltiy is to be deposited by the said
respondent on demand if the period is counted for pensionary benefits. It is further stated that in case any proposal is received from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No.3, shall consider the same, as per the Rules.
Somewhat similar question came up for consideration of this Court in CWP No. 2027 of 2006- Dr. T.S. Kathpal and others v. Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural Unviersity, decided on 8.4.2008, in
respect of the members of teaching faculty. In the said case, the Board of Management in its 224 meeting held on 28.2.2008, has relaxed the
condition of applying within four months for counting of past service for
the purpose of pension on deposit of the benefits received by the members of the teaching faculty along with interest thereon.
Keeping in view the decision of the Board of Management in respect of the Members of the teaching faculty, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefits, as have been granted by the Board of Management to the members of the teaching faculty. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has opted for Pension Scheme on 22.4.1999 i.e. within the time granted. However, it is pointed out that the petitioner has not sought the counting of past service. The matter of counting of past service has been considered by the Board of Management and relaxation granted to a number of employees including the petitioners in Dr. T.S. Kathpals case (supra). Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to treat the petitioner differently than the other members of the teaching faculty.
In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition;
direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to count the previous service rendered by the petitioner in the Directorate of Agriculture and pay such revised
notional pension including arrears thereon after the contribution is received by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from respondent No.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall seek contribution of respondent No.3 in respect of pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner in accordance with Rules, as stated by the said respondent in the reply.
Respondent No.3 shall send its contribution within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and if necessary respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall communicate the amount due and payable to respondent No.3 within a period of one month of the date of the receipt of the copy of the order so that the amount is actually disbursed by respondent No.3 within a period of two months of the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. On receipt of the contribution from respondent No.3, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall release the pensionary benefits and arrears thereof within one month thereafter.
MON AGGROYIA Vs MUNICIPAL CORP CHD and ORS Civil Writ Petition 8276 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB and HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: April 25,2008.
Mon Aggroyia ... Petitioner
Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through its Commissioner and others ... Respondents
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.
Mr.Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Nigam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 4 to 17.
Civil Writ Petition No.10275 of 2006. Kapil ... Petitioner
Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Nigam Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 3 to 7.
Civil Writ Petition No.13365 of 2006.
Baljinder Singh ... Petitioner
Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through its Commissioner and another ... Respondents
Mr.N.K. Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
MOHINDER PAL, J.
By this common judgment, the afore-stated three Civil Writ Petitions are being disposed of as the challenge made therein is to the selections and appointments of
Drivers in the Fire Wing of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation) effected in response to the advertisement (Annexure P-1 in all the three writ petitions).
The facts, as set out in each writ petition, are as under:-
Civil Writ Petition No.8276 of 2006.
The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) invited applications for fifteen posts of Drivers for its Fire Wing vide advertisement dated July 30, 2005. The petitioner, who belongs to a Backward Class, applied for the same. Five posts were reserved for the category of Backward Class candidates. It is averred that the petitioner remained an outstanding sportsman. He participated in the North Zone Inter University Football Championship while pursuing his degree of Bachelor of Sports and Humanities from Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar (a College of Sports). In this regard, petitioner has placed on record Certificate Annexure P-3.
He completed the Degree of Bachelor of Sports and Humanities in July, 1998 by securing Second Division. Copy of Degree has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner also completed his Diploma in Computer Education from M.S.Office and Internet, which is a recognized institution by the Haryana Education Society. Certificate in this regard is Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. The petitioner learned driving from Driver Training School, Haryana Roadways Central Workshop, Hissar, from December 01, 1998 to December 31, 1998 as per certificate issued by the General Manager (Technical), Haryana Roadways, Central Workshop, Hissar (Annexure P-6). According to this Certificate, the petitioner underwent the Course of Training in Driving of Haryana Transport Vehicles according to the syllabus prescribed satisfactorily. As per certificate (Annexure P-7) issued by the Chief/Regional Co-ordinator, Petroleum Conservation Research Association (Under Ministry of Petroleum and natural Gas), a Government of Indias undertaking, the petitioner also successfully completed Training Programming on efficient Driving Techniques and Diesel Conservation. The petitioner is a holder of valid driving licence for driving heavy goods vehicles as well as heavy passenger
motor vehicles. He worked as a Bus Driver with the Godara Bus Service, Hisar, on local routes from January 12, 1999 to October 08, 2003. Presently, he is employed as a Driver on contract basis in the Haryana Roadways. He is deployed on the long route passenger bases and is driving in between Chandigarh-Hisar-
Chandigarh. Certificate issued by the Godara Bus Service, Hissar, is annexed as Annexure P-8 and Certificate issued by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, is annexed as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition.
It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was interviewed by Mr. H.S. Kandhola, P.C.S, Joint Commissioner cum- Secretary, having additional charge as Chief Fire Officer of the Corporation (respondent No.3). At the time of interview, no technical person was associated and the Interview Committee was of only one person i.e respondent No.3. The Driving Test was also conducted in the presence of one Driver and a Clerk.
No procedure for allotting separate marks for different driving skills were ear-marked. No criteria was adopted for the purpose of selecting deserving and meritorious candidates.
According to the petitioner, he fared very well in the driving test and interview.
It is the case of the petitioner that none of the candidates selected under the reserved category of Backward Classes, possessed the certificate of having participated in sports. The petitioner was the only candidate possessing the Graduation Degree. Gurvinder Singh (respondent No.10), selected under the category of the petitioner, is only 8th Pass.
Rakesh Kumar (respondent No.11), another selected candidate, who belongs to Other Backwas Classes (`O.B.C), is Matriculate. Hari Kesh (respondent No.12), selected candidate belonging to O.B.C, is also only Middle Pass and has no experience of driving heavy vehicles as compared to the experience possessed by the petitioner.
It is also pleaded that the only reason for selecting the non-deserving and inexperienced candidates for the posts in question is that the brother of Mr. H.S.Kandhola (respondent No.3), namely, Mr.Harbans Singh Khandola, who is a local politician, belongs to Village Bhagwantpura, District Ropra, was interested in the appointments of persons belonging to his area.
Out of the fifteen selected candidates, eight belong to Ropar District. Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.8), Tarjeet Singh (respondent No.9), Jang Bahadur (respondent No.15) belong to Village Bhagwantpura itself and Gurvinder Singh (respondent No.10), Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.13) and Daljeet Singh (respondent No.16) belong to District Ropar. It is also averred that Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.13) did not meet the physical standard stipulated in the advertisement. His chest measurement is much less than required as per advertisement.
The petitioner made representation dated April 15, 2006 (Annexure P-11) to the Commissioner of the Corporation highlighting the irregularities committed in the selection of Fire Brigade Drivers. However, no action was taken on his representation.
In the written statements filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3, the official respondents, it has been pleaded that selection was done as per the criteria laid down by the Committee comprising of Home Secretary-cum- Secretary, Local Government, Chandigarh Administration, as its Chairman, Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and Joint Secretary, Home, Chandigarh Administration, as its members in its meeting held on May 06, 2005. The petitioner was called to appear in the physical test on January 10, 2008. For selection of Drivers, the
following criteria was adopted:-
(1) Marks for driving test (to be assessed by the Committee) 25 Marks
(2) Possessing knowledge of motor/diesel mechanism for executing minor repairs
on the basis of certificate or Diploma obtained from Industrial Training Institutes/
Polytechnics. 5 Marks
(3) Weightage for sportsperson who is position holder in - State Level 1 Mark
National Level 3 Marks International Level 5 Marks 5 Marks
(4) Marks for interview 15 Marks Total Marks 50 Marks
The physical fitness standard for the post of Driver is as under:-
a) Height 5-5
b) Chest 33-1/2 unexpanded with 1-1/2 expansion.
( c ) Eye Sight 6/6 both eyes without glasses.
Physical fitness was prescribed as under:-
a) Running distance of 100 Yards with a weight of 60 Kilograms Stone in one minute.
b) Lifting the hook ladder to a vertical position by 3rd and 6th round.
c) Climbing a rope or a vertical pipe to a height of 8-10 feet from the ground.
It is further pleaded in the written statement that after competing with the other candidates and undergoing the test/interview and having secured lesser marks as per the criteria laid down by the Administration, the petitioner cannot make any
grudge now for having not been selected. The petitioner had neither participated in a State/National/International Level competition nor he was a position holder in a State/National/International Level competition. As such, as per the criteria approved by the Chandigarh Administration, no weightage could be given to the petitioner as he had participated only in North Zone Inter University Level. It is further case of the official respondents that since the qualification prescribed for the posts of Drivers was having passed middle examination only, in view of the criteria approved by the Chandigarh Administration, no weightage to additional qualifications could be given. It has been pleaded that vide office order dated
February 03, 2006, a Committee comprising of Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, Director Social Welfare, Chandigarh Administration, Director, Sainik Welfare, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Station Fire Officer, FS-32 and Sub Divisional Engineer (Mechanical), Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, was
constituted for conducting driving test/interviews of the candidates for the posts of Drivers. The allegation that the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (respondent No.3) was heading One-man Interview Committee was denied.
It has been pleaded that the selection was done strictly as per criteria laid down by the Administration and no irregularity was committed. The driving tests, which carried a maximum of 25 marks, were conducted separately by Mr.Gurinder Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer and Mr.S.K. Gosain, Station Fire Officer, with the
assistance of a separate trained Driver. Petitioners name did not figure in the first five candidates belonging to O.B.Cs. As he was ranked at position No.8, he was not successful. It has been pleaded that out of a total of 73 candidates who appeared in the interview, only 17 candidates belonged to District Ropar. Out of 15 selected candidates, 5 belong to Ropar District.
It is a matter of coincidence and is not the result of any mala fide intention on the part of any member of the Selection Committee. It has been denied that Pardeep Kumar (respondent No.13) did not fulfil the prescribed physical standard. His chest measured 33-1/2 (unexpanded) and 35 after expansion.
In the written statement filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 17, it has been pleaded that the decision of the Selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity. In the instant case, the Selection Committee was consisted of experts also like Station Fire Officer and Sub Divisional Engineer (Mechanical) and the Committee selected the candidates after judging the comparative merit of the candidates. Therefore, setting aside the selection by re-appraising the comparative merit of the candidates in writ proceedings would not be admissible.
In this case, the petitioner, who belongs to general category, was called to appear for the physical test on January 10, 2006. It is averred in the petition that the candidates who qualified the physical test, were asked to stay back and the candidates who failed to qualify the same, including respondent No.3 Taranjit Singh and respondent No.4 Tarjeet Singh, were asked to go. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to appear for driving test and interview on February 22, 2006. According to him, he fared very well in the driving test and interview. The
petitioner has alleged that Mr. H.S.Khandola, P.C.S, Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (respondent No.2) was heading the One-man Selection Committee. It is also.
alleged in the petition that Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.6), who was medically unfit and failed to qualify the driving test because of bad eye-sight, was also given appointment. Since the petitioner was not selected for the post and, according to him, respondent No.3 to 7, who were lesser in merit than him, were selected, he filed the present writ petition.
In the written statement filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, besides taking the plea that selection was done as per the criteria laid down by the Committee comprising of Home Secretary-cum- Secretary, Local Government, Chandigarh
Administration, as its Chairman, Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and Joint Secretary, Home, Chandigarh Administration, as its members in its meeting held on May 06, 2005, it was denied that respondents Nos.3 and 4 had not qualified the physical test. Regarding constitution of Selection Committee, similar plea as taken in the reply filed in Civil Writ Petition No.8276 of 2006, has been taken. The allegation of the petitioner that respondent No.2 was heading One-man Interview Committee was denied.
It is further pleaded that the petitioner was placed in the waiting list at No.1 as he had secured 29-1/2 marks in the interview. Although Tarjeet Singh (respondent No.4) and Paramjit Singh (respondent No.5) had also secured 29-1/2 marks in the interview, but as they were older in age than the petitioner, they were selected as per the criteria laid down.
So far as the medical fitness of Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.6) is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of joining, he had submitted the Medical Fitness Certificate issued by the Principal Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh (Annexure R-3). It is further pleaded that the petitioner having competed with the other candidates and having undergone the test/interview and having secured lesser marks as per the criteria laid down by the Administration cannot make any grudge now for having not been selected especially when there is no challenge in the instant writ petition to the criteria adopted by the Selection
Committee.
In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos.3 to 7, the averment of the petitioner that respondents Nos.3 and 4 had not qualified the physical test, has been denied. It has also been denied that respondent No.6 is not medically fit.
In the replication filed by the petitioner to the written statement of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, besides reiterating the pleas taken in the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that in view of the Medical Certificate (Annexure R-3) issued by the
Principal Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, respondent No.6 cannot be said to be medically fit for the job.
It has also been stated that respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 were already engaged by respondent No.2 on temporary basis and were working in the Fire Brigade, Chandigarh. They belong to the same area to which respondent No.3 belongs.
Petitioner Baljinder Singh is an Ex-serviceman. He served the Army as a Driver for 16 years, 8 months and 5 days. He is possessing driving licence for M.Cycle/LMV/MMV/HMV. He applied for the post of Driver in response to Advertisement (Annexure P-1). He was called to appear in the physical test and was declared successful.
Thereafter, he was called for driving test and interview. It is the case of the petitioner that he stood at No.1 in the merit list in the General Category of Ex-servicemen (Drivers) whereas respondent No.2, who was the other candidate in the category of the petitioner, failed in the road test having driven over road berm. However, respondent No.2 was selected and he was kept in the waiting list.
It is the case of the petitioner that his nonselection and selection of respondent No.2 is the outcome of manipulations.
In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1, similar stand as taken in the afore-stated two writ petitions regarding the criteria laid down by the Committee comprising of Home Secretary-cum- Secretary, Local Government, Chandigarh
Administration, as its Chairman, Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and Joint Secretary, Home, Chandigarh Administration, as its members in its meeting held on May 06, 2005, has been taken. Regarding constitution of Selection Committee, similar plea as taken in the replies filed in Civil Writ Petition No.8276 of 2006 and Civil Writ Petition 10275 of 2006, has been taken. It has been further pleaded that there was no manipulation/tinkering of the merit list. The selection list was prepared strictly on merit in accordance with the criteria approved by the Chandigarh Administration and the performance shown by each candidate in the driving test and interview. In the driving test and interview conducted by the Selection Committee, the petitioner secured 33.5 marks out of 50 against 35 marks secured by respondent No.2, the successful candidate. It is denied that respondent No.2 failed in the driving test. Respondent No.2 secured 23 marks in the driving test carried out especially for Exservicemen (General Category) as against 23-1/2 marks secured by the petitioner.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the original record which was produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation.
The qualifications prescribed for the post of Driver as per advertisement (Annexure P-1) are that the candidate must have passed Middle Standard examination and should have licence of driving heavy vehicle for more than five years prior to the Fire Service and should have experience of repairing of vehicle and other fire service equipments. Required physical standard for the post of Driver as per this advertisement is height 5-5 , chest 33-1/2 and eye sight both eyes 6/6 without specs. It is further prescribed that the candidate must clear
100 yards distance with 60 Kilogram weight in one minute by running, should be capable of lifting of hook ladder to vertical position from 3rd and 6th round, and should be able to climb rope/vertical pipe from 8 to 10 feet from ground.
We have perused the Original list of Candidates belonging to all categories called for the Physical Test for the Posts of Drivers and found that various candidates were allowed to participate in the reheld physical test on their appeals. Some of them failed in the same and some passed.
We also perused the `Result Sheet of Candidates for the posts of Drivers and it revealed that out of 25 marks allocated for Driving Test, there is not much difference in the marks awarded by the Selection Committee to the selected candidates and to some of the candidates who had not been selected. Similarly, there is also not much difference in the awarding of 15 marks allocated for interview between the selected and some of the non-selected candidates.
The total marks obtained by the selected candidates are as under:-
Marks obtained Marks Total in driving test obtained marks (25 Marks) in interview (15 Marks)
1. Shakti Singh 23 09 32 (General Category)
2. Jasbir Singh (General Category) 19 12 31 3. Rakesh Tyagi 21-1/2 09 30-1/2 (General Category
4. Taranjit Singh 20 10-1/2 30-1/2 (General Category)
5. Sohanjit Mohan 13 12 30 (General Category)
Note: Sohanjit Mohan has been granted 5 Marks for his qualification of being a Diploma
holder from Industrial Training Institute / Polytechnic.
6. Tarjeet Singh 19-1/2 10 29-1/2 (General Category)
7. Paramjit Singh Saini 20-1/2 09 29-1/2 (General Category
8. Baljeet Singh 21-1/2 08 29-1/2 (E.S.M. category)
9. Satnam Singh 19 10 29 (General Category)
10. Jang Bahadur 9-1/2 08 17 (Scheduled Caste Category)
11. Gurvinder Singh 24 08 32
(O.B.C. Category)
12. Rakesh Kumar 22-1/2 08 30-1/2 (O.B.C. Category)
13. Hari Kesh 21-1/2 07 28-1/2 (O.B.C. Category)
14. Pardeep Kumar 19-1/2 08 27-1/2 (O.B.C. Category)
It is worth mentioning here that the official respondents have annexed `Criteria for selection worked out by the Municipal Committee along with letter dated July 27,
2005 annexed as Annexure R-1 in all the three writ petitions, in which 5 marks have been allotted for Additional Educational Qualifications besides 10 marks for essential educational qualificiation i.e Middle Standard. However, marks allotted for Educational Qualifications were scrapped vide letter dated January 12, 2006 (Annexure R-2 in all the three writ petitions).
Strangely enough, as noticed above, Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.6 in Civil Writ Petition 10275 of 2006) has been granted 5 Marks for his additional qualification of being a Diploma Holder from Industrial Training Institute /Polytechnic. It seems that the marks for educational qualifications were scrapped after getting the entire record and data concerning various candidates out of whom selection was to be made by the Selection Committee. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case cited as Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and others, 2005 (2) RSJ 704 that once a process of selection starts, the
prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed nor norms of selection can be altered. For this opinion, the Honble Supreme Court also referred to the earlier decision rendered in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others v.
Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others, 2001 (10) SCC 51. As stated above, as per the advertisement dated July 30, 2005, eye sight of candidates must be 6/6 both eyes
without specs. However, as per the Medical Certificate (Annexure R-3), Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.6) has been declared to be `fit for the job, but his eye sight is not given as 6/6 without specs because the Doctor has mentioned his eye sight as 6/6 C and 6/9 C, which connotes eye sight with specs. Thus, despite being medically unfit, Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.6) has been selected.
Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.6) also got himself medically examined from
Government Hospital, Kurali, vide medical certificate Annexure R-5/1 which was taken on record vide order of this Court dated January 21, 2008 passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.815 of 2008.
This Medical Certificate depicts his eight sight 6/6 both eyes without specs.
Another Medical certificate has been produced on record as Annexure R-5/2 issued by Dr.Kamaljit Singh Pannu of Pannu Eye Hospital, Ropar, who, after visual examination of Sohanjit Mohan (respondent No.6) opined his eight sight as 6/6 both eyes without specs. Under the circumstances, although we would not like to sit in appeal over the opinions of the Eye-Specialists, but it casts a doubt about the medical fitness of Sohanjit Mohan especially when as per advertisement
(Annexure P-1) eye sight of candidates must be 6/6 both eyes without specs because they have to work in the Fire Wing of the Corporation.
In Civil Writ Petition No.10275 of 2006, it has been averred by the petitioner that respondent No.3 Taranjit Singh and respondent No.4 Tarjeet Singh had not qualified the physical test. This fact has, however, been denied by the official respondents in their written statement.
`Lists of Candidates belonging to all categories called for the Physical Test for the posts of Drivers in the Fire Wing, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, have been perused. Respondent No.4 Tarjeet Singh (General Category), whose Roll Number was 94, has been declared pass on appeal.
He filed appeal on January 10, 2006, which is as under:-
Joint Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Subject: Appeal Against Running.
I have been rejected because of running test. I do not agree with this measurement. Hence, I am filing my appeal herewith for your consideration.
On the appeal itself, the following order has been passed:-
DISPOSAL OF APPEAL.
The above candidate has been reexamined and result is as under:-
Running Test:- 30-.15 Pass.
(Signatures of officials).
Similarly,Taranjit Singh (respondent No.3 in Civil Writ Petition No.10275 of 2006), belonging to General Category, whose Roll Number was 258 has been declared pass on appeal. The allegation of the petitioners that respondent No.3 Taranjit Singh and respondent No.4 Tarjeet Singh had not qualified the physical test is, thus, correct. It is also worthmentioning here that Jang Bahadur (Roll No.387), another selected candidate under Scheduled Caste category and respondent No.15 in Civil Writ Petition No.8276 of 2006, had also failed in the Physical Test and was declared pass on appeal.
There was no provision of filing appeal once the candidate had failed in the Physical Test. Nothing about filing appeal was mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure P-1). This has clearly been done to select the candidates of choice by ignoring the deserving ones. This was done not only in violation of the wellsettled
law that once the process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed nor norms of selection can be altered, but was done after the candidates had failed in the physical test.
It requires mentioning at the risk of repetition that earlier, as per `Criteria of selection worked out by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (Annexed with Annexure R-1 with all the three writ petitions), marks for educational qualifications were allotted as below:-
a) Essential educational qualification i.e Middle Standard
33-45% Marks = 5
More than 60% Marks = 10
b) Additional Educational Qualification 5 Marks
Matric = 2
10 + 2 = 3
B.A/B.Sc = 5
However, marks allotted for Educational Qualifications were scrapped vide letter dated January 12, 2006 (Annexure R-2 in all the three writ petitions). In the `Result Sheets of Candidates for the posts of Drivers (General Category) (Scheduled Caste Category), (OBC Category), (ESM General) and (ESM OBC), educational qualifications of all the candidates have been mentioned, although percentage of marks is not available anywhere on record. Candidates with Roll Numbers 45, 83, 210 i.e Ashok Kumar, Yash Pal and Karamvir Singh, respectively, belonging to General Category, are B.A and they had cleared the Physical Test in the first attempt.
Petitioner Mon Aggroyia in Civil Writ Petition No.8276, who belongs to a Backward Class (Roll No.300), is also B.A and had cleared the Physical Test in the first attempt. Kulwinder Singh (Roll No.446), who belongs to ESM General Category, is also Graduate. None of the selected candidates under all the categories is B.A. Had the marks for Educational Qualifications not been scrapped, they would have got 5 Marks each for their B.A qualification besides the marks obtained by them on the basis of percentage of marks in Essential Educational Qualification i.e Middle Standard. Similarly, various candidates, who have not been selected, are having educational qualifications of Matric and 10+ 2. Candidates with Matric qualification have been deprived of 2 marks and candidates with 10+2 qualification have been deprived of 3 marks. They had also qualified the Physical Test in the first attempt. In nutshell, all this shows that the selection has not at all been fair.
Regarding the allegation that majority of the selected candidates belong to the same area to which the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, who was one of the five members of the Selection Committee belongs, we have perused the memo of parties in these writ petitions.
Shakti Singh, Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Tyagi, Taranjit Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Hari Kesh, Rakesh Kumar, Mehar Singh (respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14 and 17, respectively in Civil Writ Petition No.8276 of 2006) belong to different Districts of Punjab and Haryana. However, Sohanjit Mohan, Tarjeet Singh, Gurvinder Singh, Pardeep Kumar, Jang Bahadur and Baljeet Singh (respondents Nos.8, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 16, respectively in Civil Writ Petition No.8276 of 2006), belong to the same District i.e Ropar. We, in the first instance, are not inclined to presume
that one member of the Selection Committee would be able to influence all the other members of the Selection Committee to select the persons of his choice, but keeping in view the fact that the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, was instrumental in allowing the appeals of candidates who had failed in the Physical Tests and were later on selected, as all the appeals were addressed to him, we have no hesitation in holding that the selection process has been vitiated. It is not understandable as to how it occurred to the candidates who had failed in the Physical Test that they could file appeals before the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, when nothing was mentioned about it in the advertisement (Annexure P-1).
The facts and circumstances, enumerated above, warrant quashing of the entire selection of the private respondents because many of the non-selected candidates, who are not petitioners before us, were not properly dealt with by the Selection Committee in the process of selection, as stated above.
Resultantly, all these writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the selection of the private respondents as Drivers in the Fire Wing of the respondent-Corporation is quashed.
( HEMANT GUPTA )
( MOHINDER PAL )
CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSVsRAMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS RSA 4000 of 2009 (O and M)
CM No. 12173-C of 2009 and
RSA No. 4000 of 2009 (O and M)
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar and others ...... Appellants
Ramesh Kumar and others ...... Respondents
Honble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Mr.Siddarth Batra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Jitender Sharma, Advocate for the caveator-respondents.
Ajay Tewari, J.
CM No. 12173-C of 2009
For the reasons recorded, the delay of 174 days in refiling the
appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court whereby the decree passed by the learned trial court has been modified to the extent that the appellants have been directed to grant arrears only for a period of three years preceding the suit and not from 24.9.93 as claimed by the respondents. The respondents filed the suit claiming that they were regularised w.e.f. 24.9.93 and were placed in a lower scale than the other persons who were appointed on regular basis.
The defence of the appellant-University was that the respondents did not have the necessary qualification and further that before their regularization their association had undertaken that they would not seek higher pay scale.
However, the learned courts below found that even with respect to other persons the requirement of qualification was relaxed. Originally there was relaxation for the respondents also but later on that relaxation order was withdrawn. On a conspectus of all these facts the courts below found that the respondents had been able to maintain a case of positive discrimination and consequently held that the action of the appellant- University in not granting them the higher pay scale was illegal. As mentioned above the learned trial court decreed suit in entirety but the learned lower Appellate Court modified the decree and granted arrears only for three years preceding the filing of the suit.
The following questions have been proposed:-
A) Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work can be applied in case of an employee who does not fulfil the requisite
qualifications?
B) Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work can be applied in the case where the employees were regularised on a
wrong pay scale and after giving him relaxation?
C) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation?
As regards questions No. A and B, after having relaxed the qualification for similarly situated employees, it would not lie in the mouth of the appellants to argue that the respondents did not possess the necessary qualification. Thus, questions No. A and B have to be answered against the appellants. As regards question No. C, I find that the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly considered the matter while granting relief of arrears only for a period of 3 years prior to the filing of the suit.
Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI)
DHARAM PAL DESHWALVsCHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVER CWP 868 of 2009
Dharam Pal Deshwal .... PETITIONER
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another ..... RESPONDENTS
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who has retired as Clerk from the services of
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar
(respondent No.1 herein), on 30.11.2008 on attaining the age of
superannuation, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-14), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for change of option from CPF to Pension Scheme has been rejected.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Clerk in the respondent University, he was placed under suspension on 18.2.1993, on contemplation of a departmental proceeding against him, for certain mis-conduct. On 8.11.1993, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet, to which he submitted reply, but his explanation was not accepted and a departmental enquiry was ordered. Ultimately, vide order dated 30.9.1994, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of
removal from service. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed statutory appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 19.4.1995.
The petitioner challenged the order of his removal from service as well as the order of the Appellate Authority by filing a civil suit.
The court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, vide its judgment and decree dated 7.3.2002, partly decreed the suit. The order of removal of the petitioner from service was declared as illegal, null and void. He was ordered to be re-instated, but without back wages. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner as well as the respondent University filed separate appeals. The court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide its judgment dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal of the respondent University.
The judgment and decree of the trial court was modified and the petitioner was held to be entitled for full back wages, including subsistence allowance, arrears of salary and all other consequential service benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his re-instatement. The said judgment and decree
became final, and vide order dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was re-instated in service.
At the time, when the petitioner was under suspension, the respondent University introduced the Pension Scheme vide notification dated 9.4.1993, with retrospective effect from 1.1.1992. All the employees of the respondent University, who were in service on 1.1.1992 or retired after 1.1.1992, were given an opportunity to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. It is the case of the respondent University that vide his
option dated 5.8.1993, the petitioner had opted to continue with the CPF Scheme. On 30.9.1994, the petitioner was removed from service.
It is admitted position that subsequently, the respondent University, vide circular dated 10.4.1996 (Annexure P-3) gave another opportunity to its employees to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. At that time, the petitioner was under removal from service, therefore, he could not have opt for the same. However, some of the employees, who had earlier opted for the CPF, changed their option to Pension Scheme. Further, vide notification dated 26.2.1999 (Annexure P-4), the respondent University gave one more chance to its employees to change
their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. At that time also, the petitioner was under removal from service and he could not change his option.
Thereafter, vide circular dated 18.4.2001 (Annexure P-5), similar offer was again given by the respondent University to its employees. At that time too, the petitioner was not in service and he could not opt for the Pension Scheme. However, it is undisputed position that in view of these subsequent opportunities, many employees of the respondent University have changed their option from CPF to Pension Scheme.
Immediately after his re-instatement on 23.3.2006 in compliance with the judgment and decree of the civil court, the petitioner
submitted an application on 12.4.2006 (Annexure P-6) for change of his option from CPF to Pension Scheme. Respondent No.2, vide his order dated 6.5.2006 (Annexure P-7), without disclosing any reason, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for change of option. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 16418 of 2006. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner had retired from service on 30.11.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, vide order dated 1.12.2008
(Annexure P-12), the said petition was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the respondents and the respondents were directed to consider that representation by passing a speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted representation dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-13), which has been rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-14), on the ground that since the petitioner could not opt for change of option in time, when the opportunity was granted, therefore, now at this stage, he cannot be permitted to change the option. Hence, this writ petition.
In the written statement, filed by the respondents, it has been stated that when the Pension Scheme was introduced in the respondent University vide notification dated 9.4.1993, an opportunity was given to the employees of the respondent University to opt either for the CPF Scheme or for Pension Scheme. The petitioner vide his option dated 5.8.1993, in writing, opted to continue to be governed by the CPF Scheme, and
subsequent to that, when opportunities were provided to all the employees of the respondent University, the petitioner did not opt for Pension Scheme.
Therefore, once the option given by the petitioner became final, he cannot be permitted to change his option. It is further stated that now, the time for changing option even under the subsequent circulars has expired, therefore, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to change his option, as it will result into grave financial implications.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The material facts, as stated above, have not been controverted
by either of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner was out of service from 30.9.1994 to 21.3.2006, therefore, he could not apply for change of option, when the respondent University issued three circulars on 10.4.1996, 26.2.1999 and 18.4.2001, whereby opportunities were given to the employees to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. He submitted that removal of the petitioner from service for the aforesaid period was held to be illegal, null and void by the Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner was not at fault for not exercising his option under the aforesaid three circulars at the relevant time. As soon as he was re-instated, immediately thereafter, he moved application to change his option from CPF to Pension Scheme. But his prayer has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the respondents, without any justification.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued
that under the circulars dated 10.4.1996, 26.2.1999 and 18.4.2001, specific time was provided to the employees for submitting their options. Since the petitioner did not apply for the same within that time, therefore, now at the belated stage, he cannot be permitted to change his option. He submitted that even during the period, he remained under removal from service, he
could have exercised his option. It is further submitted that after the retirement of the petitioner, all the retiral benefits, including the CPF amount, have been deposited in the account of the petitioner. Therefore, at this belated stage, he cannot be permitted to change his option. Support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Dr. S.B. Kalidhar v. The Board of Management, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others, (CWP No. 2314 of 2008, decided on 22.4.2009), wherein it was held that once the employee does not opt for the change of his option, in spite of the opportunity provided to him, lateron he cannot be permitted to change his option.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is the admitted position that from 30.9.1994 to 21.3.2006, the petitioner remained out of job. The Civl Court has set aside the order of his removal being illegal and void ab initio, and he was ordered to be re-instated in service with full back wages. In pursuance of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner was re-instated in service. During the time, the petitioner was out of job, three circulars were issued by the respondent University, providing fresh opportunities to its employees to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. Concededly, two of the employees have availed the said opportunities and changed their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. The petitioner, being not in service at that time, was not in a position to avail those three opportunities. He was not at fault.
It is because of his illegal removal by the respondents that he could not avail those opportunities. For that illegal act of the respondent University, the petitioner cannot be penalised and the respondents cannot be permitted to say that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to change his option under the aforesaid three circulars. It is a fact that within one month of his re-instatement, the petitioner made representation to the respondent
University, praying for change of his option from CPF to Pension Scheme.
The rejection of that prayer by the respondent University is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no justification for denying the said prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the time given in those circulars has expired. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was not given any opportunity to change his option under those circulars, as at that time, he being a dismissed employee, could not have change his option, under those circulars. Therefore, immediately on re-instatement, the petitioner was to be afforded an opportunity to change his option under those circulars, which has not been afforded and on the other hand, the prayer made by the petitioner for change of option has been declined. Merely because the change of option by the petitioner will result into some financial implications, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the said benefit. Firstly, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitioner and subsequently, when he was re-instated by the Civil Court, they have illegally and arbitrarily denied the due opportunity to the petitioner to change his option and get the benefit of Pension Scheme, being a retired employee. The judgment in Dr. S.B. Kalidhars case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, is entirely distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In that case, in spite of three opportunities provided to the petitioner under the aforesaid three circulars, the employee did not opt for the Pension Scheme, but after his retirement, he made a representation that he was not aware of one of the circulars, therefore, he should be permitted to change his option. While coming to the conclusion that in spite of the wide circulation of those circulars, the petitioner in that case consciously did not opt for the Pension Scheme, his claim was rejected.
Therefore, the said case has no relevancy with the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-14) is hereby set aside.
The respondents are directed to accept the prayer of the petitioner for change of option from CPF to Pension Scheme and to release the pensionary benefits in accordance with law. The amount of CPF deposited/paid to the petitioner will be adjusted by the respondent University.
The costs are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.
CCS HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY HISAR THROUGH Versus RANA GURJIT SODHI COCP No.1174 of 2010
CCS Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar ...Petitioner through its Registrar
Rana Gurjit Sodhi ...Respondent
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the respondent has handed over a cheque of Rs.21,870/-.
In view of the said fact, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the present contempt petition.
BABU LAL Versus CHCHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AN CWP No. 18649 of 2010
Date of decision 13 .10.2010
Babu Lal ... Petitioner
Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and others
... Respondents.
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HONBLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Dr. Joginder Singh Berwal ,Advocate for the petitioner
1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The short issue raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the educational qualifications can form valid basis for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent/ Superintendent from that of Assistant in the Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. The petitioner who is working as Assistant has challenged the notification dated 19.4.2010 (P.22) as also the amendment No. 3/2007 (P.16) carving out 25% quota for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent on the basis of seniority-cum-merit out of Assistants who have qualified the Higher Standard or State SAS Examination in accounts. Rest of the 75% posts are left to be filled on the principle of seniority-cum- merit from the same line.
The basic argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that prescription of qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent in respect of 25% quota has no nexus with the duty to be performed by the Deputy Superintendent and therefore it must be declared arbitrary. In support of his submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgement of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Md. Shujat Ali and others v. UOI and others (1975) 3 SCC 76. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that the aforesaid judgement in fact support the proposition that educational qualification can constitute valid basis for classification for the purposes of promotion and pay scale. In that regard reliance may be placed on various judgements of Honble the Supreme Court. In the case of State of J and K v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 Honble the Supreme Court upheld the classification for promotion on the basis of academic and technical qualifications. Similar principle was reiterated in the matter of pay scale in the cases of Shyam Bahu Verma v. UOI (1994) 2 SCC 521 and U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Sant Raj Singh (2006) 9 SCC 82 and in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturers Association (2008) 7 SCC 231. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same does not warrant admission. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
( Ritu Bahri )
Haryana signs MOU to expand its Maize markets
Expanding the market base of its home-grown Maize varieties to other states, the Haryana government has tied up with a seed company of Andhara Pradesh. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on Monday between Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. for production and marketing of maize varieties HM-8, HM-9 and HM-10.
Giving this information, the HAU Vice-Chancellor, K.S. Khokhar said that in lieu of this agreement, HAU will get an amount of rupees 7.5 lakh on one hand while on the other; the farmers of Andhra Pradesh will get improved seeds of maize varieties.
He emphasized the need of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for speedier development of agriculture sector. He said that the new technology was available with public sector while the resources for dissemination of the technology to the grass-root level were available with private sector, hence their partnership would prove to be a milestone for the faster development of agri-related sectors.
Khokhar added that the varsitys scientists had generated a number of innovative technologies for higher production of cereal crops, fruits, and vegetables but due to lack of resources, the university was not in a position to disseminate these technologies to the actual users all over.
He revealed that to speed up Private-Public-Partnership Programme at the university, Business Planning Development Unit (BPDU) had been established and since the inception of this unit, HAU had signed MOUs with more than 15 agri-based companies of private sector. Once the seed production programme with hybrids started in the country, Khokhar said, the possibility of grain storage in the near future could be eliminated.
CHANDIGARH: Farmers will get an improved variety of sesame (Til) developed by CCS Haryana Agricultural University. Besides Haryana, the variety will benefit the farmers of neighbouring states of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir as well.
According to CCSHAU Vice-Chancellor, Dr. K.S. Khokhar, the oilseeds scientists of the university have developed an improved variety of Til. Named HT 9713 (HT 2), the new variety possessed high yield potential and resistance against diseases.
He said that the variety had been identified for release in Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir states at the annual group meeting of the All India Coordinated Research Project on sunflower, sesame and niger held at University of Agricultural Sciences, Banglore recently.
Dr. Khokhar said that HT 9713 (HT 2) variety had recorded 15 to 25 per cent more seed yield than the check variety.
The team of scientists credited for developing this variety includes Drs. R.K. Sheoran, Dhiraj Singh, A.S. Rathi, R.S. Banga, S.P. Singh and Kamal Dhawan.
Enumerating another characteristics of the variety, Dr. R.P. Narwal, Director of Research said that its seeds are white, while plants supported dark green narrow leaves and long hairy capsules. This variety possessed 48.2 per cent oil content, he said, adding that resistance against leaf curl virus and phyllody diseases was its another feature.
Summary: Ch Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar Haryana website, mobile, contact address and approval / recognition details.