CWP No. 5084 of 2013
Vijay Kumar Bansal Versus State of Haryana and others
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat and Mr. Pranav Chadha, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, with,
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 to 10.
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
-.- -.-
We heard learned counsel for some time and the matter certainly
requires consideration.
Rule DB.
Learned counsel accept notice.
In our view, the major issue, which arises for consideration in the
present matter, is the plea arising from the fact that it is not just a case of
having another legislation being the Haryana School Teachers Selection
Board Act, 2011, but the premise of the same was that urgent recruitment was required of teachers, which could not be carried on by the Haryana Public Service Commission and the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
provisions of Articles 315 to 320 of the Constitution of India to emphasize the scheme envisaged under the Constitution for a constitutionally protected body of the State Public Service Commission (and also the UPSC). The objective is that an independent body should carry out the recruitment of various civil posts, which would be un-influenced by the pulls and pressures of the CWP No. 5084 of 2013 -2- Government that may be. It is his submission that the State Public Service
Commission is sought to be emasculated and then a plea is sought to be raised that there is overburden, so that the task cannot be carried on.
It is pointed out to us that the Commission consists of a Chairman
and 12 Members. However, this position is disputed by the respondents, who state that recently the strength of the Commission has been reduced couple of months back, a Chairman and 6 Members. If it be so, we would certainly like to know the reason for reduction of this strength of the Commission, which infact could have the ability to complete the task. Not only that, the existing composition is only of an Acting Chairman and a Member. Thus, on one hand the posts are not being filled in of the body and parallel body is sought to be created ostensibly on the plea that the parent body is not able to complete the task.
Learned Advocate General faced with the aforesaid situation
seeks a short time to examine the matter and place on record an affidavit
explaining the position about the points raised in the Court. The affidavit, as prayed for by learned Advocate General, be filed within a week. Response to the affidavit, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
List as part heard on 6.8.2013.
In view of the aforesaid development, the interim order will have
to continue till further orders.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
15.7.2013
Vijay Kumar Bansal Versus State of Haryana and others
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat and Mr. Pranav Chadha, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, with,
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 to 10.
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
-.- -.-
We heard learned counsel for some time and the matter certainly
requires consideration.
Rule DB.
Learned counsel accept notice.
In our view, the major issue, which arises for consideration in the
present matter, is the plea arising from the fact that it is not just a case of
having another legislation being the Haryana School Teachers Selection
Board Act, 2011, but the premise of the same was that urgent recruitment was required of teachers, which could not be carried on by the Haryana Public Service Commission and the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
provisions of Articles 315 to 320 of the Constitution of India to emphasize the scheme envisaged under the Constitution for a constitutionally protected body of the State Public Service Commission (and also the UPSC). The objective is that an independent body should carry out the recruitment of various civil posts, which would be un-influenced by the pulls and pressures of the CWP No. 5084 of 2013 -2- Government that may be. It is his submission that the State Public Service
Commission is sought to be emasculated and then a plea is sought to be raised that there is overburden, so that the task cannot be carried on.
It is pointed out to us that the Commission consists of a Chairman
and 12 Members. However, this position is disputed by the respondents, who state that recently the strength of the Commission has been reduced couple of months back, a Chairman and 6 Members. If it be so, we would certainly like to know the reason for reduction of this strength of the Commission, which infact could have the ability to complete the task. Not only that, the existing composition is only of an Acting Chairman and a Member. Thus, on one hand the posts are not being filled in of the body and parallel body is sought to be created ostensibly on the plea that the parent body is not able to complete the task.
Learned Advocate General faced with the aforesaid situation
seeks a short time to examine the matter and place on record an affidavit
explaining the position about the points raised in the Court. The affidavit, as prayed for by learned Advocate General, be filed within a week. Response to the affidavit, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
List as part heard on 6.8.2013.
In view of the aforesaid development, the interim order will have
to continue till further orders.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
15.7.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment