Selection Process Cannot Be Kept Open Indefinitely, Violates Article 14: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to interfere in 2014 advertisement for the post of Forest Guard observing that the selection process cannot be kept open indefinitely as the same would be violative of Article 14.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "The selection process cannot be kept open indefinitely. Keeping a selection process open-ended undermines the certainty and finality essential to public administration. An indefinite selection process also violates the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution as it allows unequal treatment of candidates and denies a level playing field to the future candidates."

These observations were made while hearing the plea challenging the order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panchkula declining the claim of the petitioners for appointment as security guard on the ground that marks secured by the petitioners (117.40) are less than the last selected candidate (117.60) of BC 'B' category.

Claim of the petitioners were that after the merit list was revised, 17 posts became available in BC'B' category which were filled up by the Respondent Department. However, only 10 persons joined, 7 did not join and 2 persons selected in earlier merit list also did not join. 

Therefore, there are 9 posts lying vacant and petitioners being in waiting list are seeking appointment for the post of Forest Guard, contended the petitioner.

After hearing the submissions the Court said, "The claim of the petitioners, however, lacks merit. The best case of the petitioners itself is that consequent upon revision of merit list, 17 posts in BC 'B' Category became available and 10 persons joined while a total of 09 posts were left vacant."

The bench noted that the petitioners have themselves stated that 19 more persons were given appointment and here is thus no subsisting force in the argument that 09 posts are still vacant as the pleaded facts counter the claim. "The process is not open ended to eventually expand the zone of waiting list and revise the waiting list as well," it added.

Justice Bhardwaj pointed that "the result pertains to the year 2014 and already a period of more than a decade has elapsed and the list itself is stale."

A large number of persons already would have been appointed in the meanwhile in different selection processes, it added.

Observing that, "A Constitutional Court thus needs to impose self-restraint in such cases where delay is not well explained," the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: NARESH KUMAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download the order