- (1.) This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 682 and 700 of 2011 as the common questions of law and facts have been raised. The challenge in these appeals filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is to a common judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in two connected petitions rendered on 11.03.2011, The matter pertains to selection of drivers belonging to the Sonepat depot of Haryana Roadways for which interviews were held from January 9th to January 11th, 2008 and the result was declared in June 2008. The learned Single Judge has categorically held that in respect of selection made for the posts in Karnal and Chandigarh depot of the Haryana Roadways along with others the records were produced but the respondents did not produce the record of impugned selection belonging to Sonepat depot despite repeated directions. It has been found that the Selection Committee in other depots like Karnal and Chandigarh has awarded the grades in their own hand and each page was found to be signed by the members of the Selection Committee. It was, thereafter, that the proceedings were forwarded to the Head Office. However, with regard to the impugned selection of Sonepat depot, the learned Single Judge has concluded that no original record of proceedings have been made available. The learned Single Judge discarded the argument advanced by the Advocate General Haryana that the list sent by the Sonepat depot is a compilation which did not need individual signature of the members. The basis for rejecting the aforesaid argument was that the Court has been kept in dark. The foundation of the compilation reflected in the list sent to the Head Office was missing. The original record has been kept back. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following observations :- ".....But in so far as Sonepat depot is concerned, no such proceedings are available on record despite the persistence of this Court. Learned Advocate General with vehemence at his command has contended repeatedly that the list sent by the Sonepat depot is a compilation and even if this plea is accepted, the Court wants to know the foundation and the basis from which such compilation is carried out in print. It is not conceivable that the members of the Selection Committee would have prepared this list at the time of conducting the interviews and what transpired during the interview has to find its manifestation in the proceedings which the members would have resorted to ordinarily and prudently. The approach of the State of Haryana has thus been evasive in this regard which when evaluated against the available record qua the other depots speaks volumes and can merely invite a cynicism of the Court. The process of selection has to be fair and transparent and any attempt which even remotely casts a shadow of doubt delivers a double blow. Not only does it adversely impact the aspirations of gullible person seeking appointment but it also hits at the credibility of the system and the Government and its functionaries do not have the liberty to put it at stake and if it does so Court has to intervene because if the credibility of the system is threatened it shakes the confidence of the people, and the process of selection in public appointments, for these reasons, cannot be given any other colour than fairness. To the mind of this court, the process of selection does not seem to be fair as the perusal of the list reveals an attempt at a tailored selection list. It is not a reflection of the proper selection. Candidates from Sr. No. 1 to 28 have been assessed as excellent. Thereafter from 29 to 61 have been consistently assessed as very good and from 62 to 78 have been assessed as good and thereafter the remaining have been assessed as average."
(2.) The aforesaid extracts from the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge would reveal beyond a doubt that the respondent had adopted an arbitrary criteria and unfair process of selection. The candidates from Sr. No. 1 to 28 have been assigned in one lot as excellent and then from Sr.No. 29 to 61 very good and from 62 to 78 in the lot of good. The remaining as average. This would illustrate their arbitrariness and patent violation of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution.
(3.) We have heard Mr. J.S. Dahiya, learned counsel for the appellants who were selected as drivers for Sonepat depot. Mr. Dahiya has argued that there are factual errors in the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in so far as lots of excellent, very good and good are concerned. According to Mr. J.S. Dahiya, these are not in ascending orders or descending orders. They did not reveal any particular pattern so as to be dubbed as arbitrary. He has maintained that proper selection process was followed and a procedural lapse of non-signing cannot be given exalted status of substantive lapse vitiating the whole selection.;