High Court imposes Rs 50,000 penalty on state for delay in recruitment

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 22

Rapping the state of Haryana for arbitrary action in a recruitment matter, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed Rs 50,000 costs on it and the Department of Higher Education. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya also ordered the state and other respondents to offer appointment to petitioner-candidate on a tabla player’s post, while setting two-week deadline for paying the costs to him.

Asked to appoint petitioner

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya also ordered the state and other respondents to offer appointment to petitioner-candidate on a tabla player’s post, while setting two-week deadline for paying the costs to him.

The direction by Justice Dahiya came in a case where petitioner Sanjeev Kumar was duly selected and recommended for appointment vide letter dated June 18, 2019. But he was compelled to move the court in 2011 after he was not offered appointment on time following “departmental lethargy”.

Justice Dahiya asserted the department concerned was required to cancel forthwith the appointments of two selected candidates in the general category after they did not accept the appointment offer. It was required to proceed with offering the posts to the ones next in the order of merit. But the authorities concerned without any justification took more than eight months.

Justice Dahiya asserted five-and-a-half months were again wasted before initiating the process of offering appointment to the petitioner and calling him for document verification. The waiting list’s validity by that time had expired. The petitioner could neither have been blamed for it, nor could he be made to suffer.

Referring to the “settled law”, Justice Dahiya asserted a waitlist candidate could not be prevented from being appointed following the department’s inability to promptly cancel unaccepted appointment offer given to another candidate, resulting in the expiry of the waiting list’s validity.

Going into the background of the matter, Justice Dahiya asserted the waiting/selection list’s validity stood extended by the government till December 17, 2020. The petitioner’s documents stood verified on September 2, 2020, and the appointment offer to the selected candidates stood cancelled on March 18, 2020. It was, as such, incumbent upon the department to offer appointment to him.

Justice Dahiya added the receipt of letter conveying validity extension after the period was over could not be a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner. The validity stood extended up to December 17, 2020, vide notice dated February 9, 2021.

“The petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of tabla player, from the date other selected candidates in the selection list were appointed, with all consequential benefits. He will be entitled to the benefits notionally from that date of appointment and actually from the date of joining,” Justice Dahiya asserted.

Before parting with the matter, Justice Dahiya added non-availability of post could not be a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner, who had been wronged only on account of the respondents’ arbitrary action.