While hearing a petition related to the appointment of a candidate selected in the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) Recruitment of 2004, a division bench of two judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has given a split verdict.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma accepted the appeal of petitioner Surendra Lathar and directed to give him appointment, while Justice Meenakshi I Mehta rejected his petition.
Due to differences of opinion, the court has now sent this matter before the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court to constitute a larger bench so that a final decision can be taken.
This case is related to the appeal filed by Surendra Lathar, who was selected in the Haryana Civil Services Examination of 2004. There were allegations of serious irregularities in the selection process in this examination conducted by Haryana Public Service Commission.
Gross irregularities in the evaluation process
On the instructions of the Supreme Court, the Haryana State Vigilance Bureau conducted an investigation and submitted its report on 9 November 2011. The investigation found that there were gross irregularities in the evaluation process.
The checking of answer sheets revealed that different inks were used, and there were indications of alteration of marks. The evaluator was found to have used different pens for marking and signing.
In compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court and the orders of the High Court, a committee of senior officers headed by the Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance Bureau was constituted. This committee divided the candidates into ‘tainted’ and ‘innocent’ categories.
38 candidates were considered ‘innocent’ and were given appointment. The division bench of the High Court had upheld this decision in 2016, and also given liberty to other deprived candidates to present their claim before the state government.
Surendra Lathar also made a representation before the state government. The committee rejected his claim saying that the examiner who checked his answer sheet had used two different pens. On 27 February 2017, his representation was rejected on this ground, which he challenged.
38 people were appointed
The appellant argued that among the 38 people who were appointed, there were five candidates whose answer sheets also used two different pens. In such a situation, why were they discriminated against? Apart from this, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory clearly stated that the examiner who used both the inks was the same person.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, while giving the verdict in favor of Surendra Lathar, said that the investigation process done by the state government was clearly biased and arbitrary.
He said that giving appointment to five candidates selected on the basis of the examiners who used two inks and denying appointment to the appellant who had the same type of answer sheet, is a direct violation of the equality principle of the Constitution.
He said that once the committee has accepted that the use of two inks by the same examiner is not a discrepancy, then all the candidates in similar circumstances should have been treated equally.
On the other hand, Justice Meenakshi I Mehta, while dismissing Surendra Lathar’s appeal, said that he had not previously taken any special permission from the court on this issue that he would be able to file an appeal in future. He himself had chosen to present his case before the state government.
Justice Mehta also said that the state government took into account all the necessary facts and reports while examining his answer sheet and the petitioner could not present any evidence of malice or discrimination.
Thus, in view of the opposite decisions of both the judges, the matter has now been sent to the Chief Justice, who will constitute a larger bench on this subject and take the final decision.
