HC questions dual intimation mode in clerks’ recruitment in Haryana, orders probe

Holding the conduct of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (DHBVNL) and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd (UHBVNL) officials “beyond comprehension,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a preliminary fact-finding inquiry into the dual mode adopted for intimating selected candidates for the posts of lower division clerk (LDC). The Bench asserted that the matter raised “a strong suspicion about the selective manner” in which appointments were handled.

Advertisement

“The act and conduct of the officials of respondents DHBVNL and UHBVNL needs to be probed by an independent agency, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,” Justice Harkesh Manuja directed while disposing of two contempt petitions filed through advocate Sachin Jain.

Justice Manuja asserted the petitioners had withdrawn the petitions after being assured of their joining to the LDC posts in DHBVNL. But the court held it could not “keep a blind eye and sit as a fence sitter by treating itself to be a spectator.”

Justice Manuja added unfairness at their hands while treating the selected candidates with discrimination was beyond comprehension and the same did not pass the key test of reasonableness, especially under the given facts and circumstances of the matter.

Referring to the record before the Court, Justice Manuja observed the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) advertised 946 posts of LDC on their requisition — 478 for DHBVNL and 486 for UHBVNL.

The selection process concluded in 2019, and successive selection lists recommended around 419 candidates initially for DHBVNL, followed by another 71. However, glaring anomalies emerged in how selected candidates were informed about document verification and joining.

The two respondents produced the entire record pertaining to the process of joining. Justice Manuja noted: “Upon perusal of the record, around 240 selected candidates were intimated about their selection and recommendation through personal messengers; whereas around 190 candidates out of the same selection and recommendation list were served/ informed through registered post.”

The court added: “Out of 240 selected/recommended candidates, those who were informed by the respondent through personal messenger, 220 joined the department; whereas out of 190 those who were allegedly served through registered post, merely 20 came forward to join the services; this fact itself raises a suspicion about the selective manner…”

Justice Manuja directed the high court’s Registrar Vigilance to conduct an inquiry into whether DHBVNL and UHBVNL have any written rules, guidelines or policy regarding calling selected candidates for joining, why personal messengers were deployed for 240 candidates while 190 were served through post, and why no uniform method was adopted for intimating all candidates.