The Punjab and Haryana High Court has pulled up the Haryana government for significant procedural lapses in the appointment of technical directors to the state's power utilities back in 2015. The court has now directed the state to reassess the claim of a retired chief engineer for all admissible retrospective benefits, if found eligible under the original rules.
Court Finds Flaws in 2015 Selection Process
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed this significant order while disposing of a writ petition filed by J B Mudgal, a former chief engineer. Mudgal had challenged the authorities for not appointing him as a director despite being senior to officers who were promoted ahead of him.
The case revolves around six vacancies for the post of technical director that arose in April 2015 across Haryana's power utilities: HVPNL, UHBVNL, and DHBVNL. The state government had issued a notification on February 10, 2015, clearly stating that appointments would be made on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, based on a common seniority list of eligible chief engineers.
Mid-Process Rule Changes and Unfair Rejection
Mudgal, who joined as chief engineer on July 2, 2014, argued that he was the senior-most eligible officer when two director posts remained vacant between March and April 2015, yet his candidature was ignored.
The High Court noted a critical deviation. After the initial notification, an executive order dated March 2, 2015, issued by the additional chief secretary, led to the formation of a Selection Committee. This committee introduced two major changes: it shifted the criterion from seniority-cum-merit to merit-cum-seniority, and added a new condition requiring one year of service as chief engineer.
The court observed that these conditions were not part of the original government notification and were introduced during an ongoing selection process without any formal amendment or legislative sanction.
Complicating matters, Mudgal was issued a chargesheet in December 2015, which remained pending. During the selections held in January 2016, his case was rejected solely based on these pending disciplinary proceedings. Meanwhile, Naresh Sardana, a junior officer, and Ajmer Singh Gill were appointed as directors. The court recorded that no departmental proceedings were pending against Mudgal at the time of the original vacancies in April 2015.
State's Admission and Court's Final Directive
In a crucial admission, the Principal Secretary of the Power Department conceded in a February 2017 affidavit that the introduction of the one-year eligibility condition should have been approved by the state government before being applied.
After hearing all parties, the HC held that selection criteria cannot be altered mid-process and that executive instructions cannot override a government notification. The court also rejected the state's argument that later government approval cured these procedural defects.
Since Mudgal had already retired during the pendency of the case, the court held that reinstatement was no longer feasible. However, in its order released on Friday, the HC directed the state authorities to reassess Mudgal's case strictly under the original February 10, 2015 notification. The court explicitly ordered the authorities to "ignore the condition of one year's service as chief engineer, and release all admissible consequential benefits, if he is found suitable at the relevant time."
